connecticut department of public health...(commonly referred to as “section 639f”). section 639f...
TRANSCRIPT
Connecticut Department of Public Health
Cost and Market Impact Review of Hartford HealthCare’s Proposed Affiliation
with
The Charlotte Hungerford Hospital
16-32135-CMIR
Pursuant to C.G.S. §19a-639f
Preliminary Report
JUNE 8, 2017
FINAL REPORT WILL FOLLOW WITH EXHIBITS A & B
DATE
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 7
I. Analytic Approach and Data Sources ......................................................................................................... 9
A. Analytic Approach and Framework .................................................................................................. 9
B. Methods and Measures Used to Conduct the Analysis .................................................................. 10
C. Key Sources of Data and Information ............................................................................................. 12
D. Comparators ................................................................................................................................... 12
II. Overview of the Parties and the Affiliations ........................................................................................... 14
III. Analysis of Parties’ Baseline Performance and Impact .......................................................................... 19
A. Costs and Market Factors ................................................................................................................. 19
A.1. Analysis of the Baseline Performance ......................................................................................... 21
A.2. Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 36
B. Access and Availability of Services ................................................................................................... 37
B.1. Baseline Performance .................................................................................................................. 38
B.2. Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 43
C. Quality of Care Performance and Care Delivery ............................................................................... 44
C.1. Baseline Performance .................................................................................................................. 44
C.2. Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 51
D. Consumer Concerns ......................................................................................................................... 54
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 58
Exhibit A: Responses to the Preliminary Report ........................................................................................ 62
Exhibit B: Analysis of Responses to Preliminary Report ............................................................................. 63
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
1
Acknowledgements
Department of Public Health
Antony Casagrande
Micheala Mitchell
Shauna Walker
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH WISHES TO THANK THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND THE OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER
FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION FOR THIS REPORT
Department of Social Services
Dr. Donna Balaski
Annie Jacob
Office of the State Comptroller
Natalie Braswell
Joshua Wojcik
Thomas Woodruff
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH WISHES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXPERT ANALYTIC SUPPORT PROVIDED BY HEALTH MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATES AND ITS STAFF
Health Management Associates
Jaimie Bern
Ellen Breslin
Tom Dehner
Ray Jankowski
Michelle Janssen
Sarah McClelland
Jeff Smith
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
2
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym Abbreviation
APCD All-Payer Claims Database
AFS Audited Financial Statement
AHA American Hospital Association
AHRQ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
AAOP Average Age of the Operating Plant
Backus William H. Backus Hospital
BH Behavioral Health
BCMA Bar Code Medication Administration
Bristol Bristol Hospital
Bristol Group Bristol Hospital and Health Care Group
CABG Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Charlotte Hungerford Charlotte Hungerford Hospital
CHNA Community Health Needs Assessment
CMI Hospital Case Mix Index
CMIR Cost and Market Impact Review
CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
CON Certificate of Need
CPOE Computerized Physician Order Entry
C-section Cesarean Section
CT Connecticut
CY Calendar Year
DPH Connecticut Department of Public Health
DSS Department of Social Services
ED Emergency Department
FY Fiscal Year
Gov’t Government
GPSR Gross Patient Service Revenue
Griffin Griffin Hospital
Griffin Health Griffin Health Services
HAI Healthcare-Associated Infection
Hartford Hartford Hospital
Hartford HealthCare Hartford HealthCare Corporation, Hartford HealthCare System
HCAHPS Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems
HEDIS Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set
HHC Hartford HealthCare Corporation
HHCMG Hartford HealthCare Medical Group
HPC Massachusetts Health Policy Commission
HOCC Hospital of Central Connecticut, also Central Connecticut
ICU Intensive Care Unit
IPA Independent Practice Association
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
3
Acronym Abbreviation
IQI Inpatient Quality Indicator
L + M Lawrence + Memorial Hospital
Leapfrog The Leapfrog Group
MRSA Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
NICU Newborn Intensive Care Unit
Non-Gov’t Payer Non-Government Payer, which excludes Medicaid and Medicare
NPSR Net Patient Service Revenue
NSQIP National Surgical Quality Improvement Program
OB Obstetrics
OHCA Office of Health Care Access
OP Outpatient
OSC Office of the State Comptroller
PH Physical Health
PPE Property, Plant, and Equipment
PSA Primary Service Area
Sharon Sharon Hospital
Sharon Hosp. Holding Sharon Hospital Holding Co.
TME Total Medical Expenses
UCONN University of Connecticut School of Medicine
WCHN Western Connecticut Health Network, Western Connecticut
YNHH Yale New Haven Hospital
Y-NHHS Yale-New Haven Health Services Corporation, Yale-New Haven Health System
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
4
Introduction
For many years, the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) has conducted a Certificate of Need (CON) program
to support community-based planning for health services and facilities. The CON program is intended to prevent costly
duplication of health services and to promote access to and continuity of health care services for Connecticut residents.
In 2015, the Connecticut General Assembly passed Section 29 of Public Act 15-146, codified as C.G.S. §19a-639f
(commonly referred to as “Section 639f”). Section 639f requires the Office of Health Care Access (OHCA), which
conducts the state’s CON program, to comprehensively review certain CON applications that involve hospital ownership
affiliations that have the potential to affect health care costs or the performance of the health care market. Specifically,
OHCA is obligated to conduct a “cost and market impact review” (CMIR) when a CON application proposes a transfer of
hospital ownership, and the purchaser is:
1. a hospital or hospital system with net patient service revenue exceeding $1.5 billion in 2013, or
2. organized or operated as a for-profit entity.
This Preliminary Report examines a proposed affiliation of The Charlotte Hungerford Hospital (Charlotte Hungerford)
with Hartford HealthCare Corporation (Hartford HealthCare). Under the proposed affiliation, Charlotte Hungerford will
transfer ownership to Hartford HealthCare, which will become the sole corporate member of Charlotte Hungerford. The
proposed affiliation will not change Charlotte Hungerford’s status as a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, and
Charlotte Hungerford will retain a separate hospital license.
The Affiliation Agreement requires Hartford HealthCare to invest up to $73 million for the benefit of Charlotte
Hungerford. In addition, Hartford HealthCare commits to providing $3 million to certain community organizations in
Charlotte Hungerford’s service area. Both parties conveyed in the CON application and associated hearing testimony
that the affiliation will allow Charlotte Hungerford to continue to provide services to the communities in its service area,
and will result in improved quality of care by “achieving certain clinical and operational advancements and economies of
scale.”1
Informed by the parties’ CON and cost and market impact review-related submissions and the best available data, this
report describes the circumstances surrounding the affiliation and the likely impact of it on the health care market in
Connecticut. This report includes several potential impacts, including on the market positions of the involved parties, the
cost of health care, access to health care services, the quality of services and care delivery, and on consumers.
Section 639f requires that a CMIR shall examine the business and relative market positions of the involved parties. In
addition, subsection (d) of the law enumerates 12 specific factors that a CMIR may examine, which are excerpted here:
1. the transacting parties’ size and market share within its primary service area, by major service category and
within its dispersed service areas;
2. the transacting parties’ prices for services, including the transacting parties’ relative prices compared to other
health care providers for the same services in the same market;
3. the transacting parties’ health status adjusted total medical expense, including the transacting parties’ health
status adjusted total medical expense compared to that of similar health care providers;
1 CT DPH Office of Health Care Access, Certificate of Need Application, Version 9/21/16, page 13.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
5
4. the quality of the services provided by the transacting parties, including patient experience;
5. the transacting parties’ cost and cost trends in comparison to total health care expenditures state wide;
6. the availability and accessibility of services similar to those provided by each transacting party, or proposed to be
provided as a result of the transfer of ownership of a hospital within each transacting party’s primary service
areas and dispersed service areas;
7. the impact of the proposed transfer of ownership of the hospital on competing options for the delivery of health
care services within each transacting party’s primary service area and dispersed service area including the impact
on existing service providers;
8. the methods used by the transacting parties to attract patient volume and to recruit or acquire health care
professionals or facilities;
9. the role of each transacting party in serving at-risk, underserved and government payer patient populations,
including those with behavioral, substance use disorder and mental health conditions, within each transacting
party’s primary service area and dispersed service area;
10. the role of each transacting party in providing low margin or negative margin services within each transacting
party’s primary service area and dispersed service area;
11. consumer concerns, including, but not limited to, complaints or other allegations that a transacting party has
engaged in any unfair method of competition or any unfair or deceptive act or practice; and
12. any other factors that the office determines to be in the public interest.
Section 639f sets out timelines for the series of events associated with the CMIR process, which require OHCA to provide
notice of the initiation of a CMIR, with requests for information from the parties, within 21 days of the CON filing.
Transacting parties have 30 days to respond to the requests for information, and after OHCA determines compliance
with its data requests, it has 90 days to issue a Preliminary Report. The transacting parties may respond to the
Preliminary Report within 30 days, and after 30 more days OHCA must issue a Final Report.
OHCA is obligated to refer any Final Report to the Attorney General if it indicates that either party a) currently has or is
likely to have a dominant market share for the services the transacting party provides, and b) currently charges or is
likely to charge prices that are materially higher than the median prices or currently has or is likely to have a health
status adjusted total medical expense that is materially higher than the median total medical expense. In such a case,
the Attorney General may utilize the Final Report as evidence in any action undertaken pursuant to existing legal
authority.
Section 639f contemplates that OHCA will contract with an independent consultant with expertise in performing
economic analyses of health care market functioning and health care costs and prices. For this CMIR, OCHA retained
Health Management Associates (HMA), a health care policy research and consulting firm, to perform the analysis
outlined in Section 639f.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
6
Notably, this is the first CMIR conducted under Section 639f. Over the course of producing this work, OHCA and HMA
have comprehensively assessed the availability of health care market data in Connecticut and have identified some
challenges to addressing all factors included in Section 639f, particularly with respect to commercial market data.
Nevertheless, OHCA and HMA worked closely together and with the parties to identify the best sources of data available
to inform this report and are confident that the findings in this report rest on sound and reasonably relevant
information. The CMIR process, which is independent of the CON process and separate from any law enforcement
review, is a policy-oriented assessment of the influence of hospital market changes on the vitality of the health care
market in Connecticut. The process enhances transparency and builds awareness of the important issues that arise
when significant affiliations are proposed that alter the structure and composition of the hospital provider market.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
7
Executive Summary On November 28, 2016, Hartford HealthCare submitted a Certificate of Need (CON) application for the affiliation of
Charlotte Hungerford with Hartford HealthCare. Under the proposed affiliation, Charlotte Hungerford will transfer
ownership to Hartford HealthCare. Hartford HealthCare will become the sole corporate member of Charlotte
Hungerford.2 The Affiliation Agreement does not contemplate any reductions of services at Charlotte Hungerford.
Charlotte Hungerford would be integrated into Hartford HealthCare’s existing five-hospital system and would retain a
separate hospital license. The Affiliation Agreement requires Hartford HealthCare to invest up to $73 million for the
benefit of Charlotte Hungerford. In addition, Hartford HealthCare commits to providing $3 million to certain community
organizations in Charlotte Hungerford’s service area.
This CMIR is the first undertaken pursuant to Section 639f, which requires OHCA to comprehensively review certain CON
applications that involve hospital ownership affiliations that have the potential to affect health care costs or the
performance of the health care market.
Informed by the parties’ CON application, other information submitted by the parties, and other available data, this
Preliminary Report describes the circumstances surrounding the proposed affiliation and the likely impact of it on the
health care market in Connecticut. This report examines potential impacts to the market positions of the involved
parties and on the cost of health care, access to health care services, the quality of services, and care delivery.
This report is organized into three main sections. Section I provides an overview of the analytic approach to the issues,
including a description of the data sources used and an identification of appropriate hospitals or integrated health
systems to which Hartford HealthCare and Charlotte Hungerford are compared for the purposes of the analysis. Section
II is a description of the parties and provides a detailed account of the elements of the proposed affiliation. Section III
makes findings about the parties’ baseline performance and the potential impact of the affiliation on that performance,
across four domains: 1) costs and market factors; 2) access and availability of services; 3) quality and care delivery; and
4) consumer concerns. Our findings, organized by these four domains, are summarized below:
1. Cost and Market Factors
Charlotte Hungerford is facing significant financial challenges that are likely to continue to deepen without an
intervention. Hartford HealthCare is in strong financial condition.
Charlotte Hungerford, with 122 beds in 2015, is one of the smallest hospitals in the state. Hartford HealthCare is
the 2nd largest health system in the state, with 1,679 beds in 2015 representing 19.4% of all the beds in the
state.
The largest health system in the state, Yale-New Haven Health System, represents 27% of the total beds in the
state in 2015.
Because Charlotte Hungerford is a small hospital, the affiliation will only increase Hartford HealthCare’s market
share by less than 2 percentage points, when measured by number of beds, discharges or NPSR.
The proposed affiliation would improve Charlotte Hungerford’s financial condition, which is weak and in the
absence of the affiliation, likely to worsen.
The proposed affiliation would increase the size of the Hartford HealthCare system. Specifically, the affiliation
would increase the number of beds in the Hartford HealthCare system by 7.3%. Total hospital discharges would
2 See Certificate of Need Application, Affiliation of The Charlotte Hungerford Hospital with the Hartford HealthCare Corporation, November 28, 2016. See: http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/ohca/conapplications/2016/16_32135_con.pdf
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
8
increase by 13.9%, and NPSR would increase by 5.1%. This growth would extend Hartford HealthCare’s market
footprint further to the west, giving it broad east to west coverage across the mid to upper portion of the state.
The proposed affiliation could lead to an increase in Charlotte Hungerford’s prices from commercial payers over
time. Provider consolidations or alignments can affect market leverage and negotiated prices.
2. Access and Availability of Services
Charlotte Hungerford provides a substantial amount of care to Medicare-covered individuals including adults
with disabilities and seniors and is an important provider of hospital care to Medicaid populations including
mothers, infants, children and adolescents, as well as those who are uninsured.
The proposed affiliation would preserve access to Charlotte Hungerford for these populations and has the
potential to improve the community’s ability to address identified community needs.
Overall, these new investments, coupled with many other investments promised under the proposed affiliation,
hold promise for improving access and the availability of services for all populations, including children,
adolescents, adults and seniors.
3. Quality of Care and Care Delivery
There is room for improvement on quality and safety performance for both Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford
Hospital , with Charlotte Hungerford results showing many areas for improvement.
The Charlotte Hungerford Community Health Needs Assessment identifies significant unmet needs in Charlotte
Hungerford’s primary service area, including primary care and behavioral health access needs.
The Hartford HealthCare quality of care structures and initiatives have the potential to support improvements in
quality of care and patient experience at Charlotte Hungerford.
In terms of care delivery, Hartford HealthCare commits to support an array of new or expanded services in
Charlotte Hungerford’s service area and these commitments appear to be informed by identified community
needs.
4. Consumer Concerns
No data was identified showing the parties engaging in unfair methods of competition or any unfair or deceptive
act or practices and no specific consumer concerns were raised at the CON public hearing held on May 8, 2017. While the governance provisions of the Affiliation Agreement maintain a role for the existing Charlotte
Hungerford board and place two additional members on the Hartford HealthCare Governing Board drawn from
Charlotte Hungerford, the state may wish to monitor community involvement during the transition period to
ensure a smooth transition for all stakeholders including consumers.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
9
I. Analytic Approach and Data Sources
A. Analytic Approach and Framework
DPH contracted with HMA to conduct this CMIR, drawing upon its expertise and experience in hospital management,
finance, and clinical care delivery. Together, DPH and HMA developed an approach to examine the proposed affiliation
of Charlotte Hungerford with Hartford HealthCare, and the likely impact of the affiliation on the health care market in
Connecticut. The approach is anchored in C.G.S. §19a-639f (“Section 639f”) and explained in this section.
The following questions summarize the approach:
1. What are the current cost and market conditions for the transacting parties prior to affiliation? The answer to
this question forms the “baseline” analysis.
2. What is likely to happen to the costs and market conditions for the transacting parties post affiliation? The
answer to this question forms the “impact” analysis.
Section 639f directs DPH to conduct the CMIR and to examine several factors relating to the business and the relative
market positions of the transacting parties. More specifically, the statute includes 12 factors that DPH may include in its
analysis. In compliance with this directive, an analytic framework was established that assigns each of the 12 factors to
four domains of interest, as described below.
Using these four domains, the “baseline,” or current state of the health care market was developed with respect to the
transacting parties, and the likely “impact” of the proposed affiliation was projected on the current state of the market.
The four domains and the factors comprising the domains are defined below.
Domain 1. Costs and Market
This domain addresses four of the 12 factors, including the transacting parties’ (1) size and market share within its
primary service area, by major service category and within its dispersed areas; (2) prices for services, including the
transacting parties’ relative prices compared to other health care providers for the same services in the same market; (3)
cost and cost trends in comparison to total health care expenditures state wide; and (4) health status adjusted total
medical expenses including the transacting parties’ health status adjusted total medical expense compared to that of
similar health care providers. Also examined was the financial performance of the transacting parties.
Domain 2. Access and Availability of Services
This domain captures four of the 12 factors including the (1) availability and accessibility of services similar to those
provided by each transacting party, or proposed to be provided as a result of ownership of a hospital within each
transacting party’s primary service areas and dispersed service areas; (2) methods used by the transacting parties to
attract patient volume and to recruit or acquire health care professionals or facilities; (3) role of each party in serving at-
risk, underserved populations, and government payer patient populations including those with behavioral, substance
use disorder and mental health conditions, within each transacting party’s primary service area and dispersed service
areas; and (4) role of each transacting party in providing low-margin or negative margin services within each transacting
parties’ primary service area.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
10
Domain 3. Quality and Care Delivery
This domain captures two of the 12 factors including the (1) quality of the services provided by the transacting parties,
including patient experience; and (2) care delivery.
Domain 4. Consumer Concerns
This domain captures one of the 12 factors, which is consumer concerns, including, but not limited to complaints or
other allegations that a transacting party has engaged in any unfair method of competition or any unfair or deceptive
practice.
Other Factors
Finally, Section 639f also indicates that DPH may examine any other factor that the office determines to be in the public
interest. This is the twelfth factor outlined in the Section 639f.
B. Methods and Measures Used to Conduct the Analysis
The analysis of the 12 factors by domain was conducted by using a set of methods and measures to establish the
baseline. The data and information available for this CMIR heavily influenced the choice of methods and measures.
Future CMIRs should build upon these measures and methods as more commercial market data becomes available and
key methods and measures are added and broadened in response to the changing health care market in Connecticut
and nationally. See Table 1: Methods and Measures by Domain.
Table 1: Methods and Measures by Domain Domain Measure Methods
Domain 1.
Costs and Market
Financial condition A comprehensive analysis was performed of the financial condition of
the transacting parties and their comparators. Measures used included
total revenue, expenses, operating margin, days cash on hand, and
average age of the plant.
Size and market share Several measures were examined including the number of beds,
inpatient discharges and net patient service revenue (NPSR).
Price The “price” per unit of service, (admission or visit, for example) could
not be examined due to data limitations. Instead, an examination was
made of the average cost per inpatient admission and the average cost
per outpatient visit to Medicaid, which represents the revenue to the
hospital for providing Medicaid services.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
11
Table 1: Methods and Measures by Domain (continued) Domain Measure Methods
Domain 1
(continued)
Costs and Market
Costs and Costs Trends An examination was made of paid claims data for Medicaid for inpatient
care and outpatient visits and of financial information based on audited
financial statements. An examination could not be made of the following
measures including: total health care expenditures state wide and health
status adjusted TME for the transacting parties’ health status adjusted
TME compared to that of similar health care providers. The data to
adjust TME for health status was not available to conduct this analysis,
which is critical to examining prices.
Case Mix Index An examination was made of the variation across hospitals, based on the
overall case mix index (CMI) for each hospital. It was not possible to
examine adjusted total medical expenses without the ability to adjust
each hospital’s expenses for health status difference. This type of an
analysis requires a more extensive set of data on each hospital’s
expenses and significant diagnostic information to adjust expenses for
differences in health status across the hospitals.
Domain 2.
Access and
Availability of
Services
Availability and access An examination was made of the extent of services provided to seniors,
to individuals covered under Medicaid, as well as access to emergency
department and behavioral health services.
Methods to attract volume or
recruit professionals
A brief examination of this factor was conducted drawing upon the
testimony of the transacting parties at the hearing on this CON
application held by DPH, (May 2017).
Role of each party in serving
at-risk underserved
populations
To examine the role of each party in serving at-risk and underserved
populations, an examination was made of the payer mix for the
transacting parties and their comparators and of each of their roles in
providing services to Medicaid and Medicare populations, who include
many populations who are at risk and underserved.
Role in providing low-margin
and negative margin
An examination was made of the extent to which the transacting parties
provide services to Medicaid populations and to uninsured persons.
Domain 3.
Quality and care
delivery
Quality and patient experience An examination was made of several relevant measures including
metrics of hospital system structure, clinical process, clinical outcome
and patient experience.
Care delivery Qualitative and quantitative information about the care delivery system
today and the proposed changes for the care delivery system was
reviewed. Several sources were used including the CON application and
Charlotte Hungerford’s Community Health Needs Assessment included
with the application.
Domain 4.
Consumer concerns
Consumer concerns Overall, all aspects of this CMIR were considered to address consumer
concerns around cost, access and quality.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
12
C. Key Sources of Data and Information
Several sources of data and information were relied upon to conduct this CMIR. These sources include data and
information collected from state, federal and independent agencies and organizations including Charlotte Hungerford
and Hartford HealthCare. Only data that can be made publicly-available data was used in this CMIR. 3
Several state agencies including the Department of Public Health, the Department of Social Services (DSS), and the Office
of the Comptroller provided data for this analysis. A substantial amount of data was provided by DSS to take a “deep
dive” into the transacting parties’ Medicaid market and by the Office of the State Comptroller to examine the
transacting parties’ state employee market.
Much of the information produced by the transacting parties was marked confidential. For this CMIR, such information
was not disclosed unless it could also be obtained from a publicly-available source. See Table 2: Key Sources of Data and
Information Used in CMIR.
Table 2: Key Sources of Data and Information Used in CMIR Organization Description
American Hospital Association (AHA)
American Hospital Association (AHA) database
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Hospital Compare
Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS)
Department of Public Health (DPH)
Audited Financial Statements (AFS) for the hospitals and comparators
Connecticut hospital statistics for short-term acute hospitals
Certification of Need (CON) application filed by the transacting parties, including the Community Health Needs Assessment
Department of Social Services (DSS)
Paid claims for inpatient and outpatient services
Office of the State Comptroller (OSC)
Paid claims for State of Connecticut Employee Health Plans
The Leapfrog Group Leapfrog Hospital Survey
Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade
D. Comparators
Several of the factors outlined in Section 639f require consideration of other health care providers operating in the same
market or providing similar services. Modeled after the types of analyses performed elsewhere in the country, a group
of comparator hospitals for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare were selected to examine their cost and
market conditions around costs, access and quality. See Table 3: Transacting Parties and Their Respective Comparators.
3 Information from the All- Payer Claims Database (APCD) was not available for this CMIR. Future CMIRs would benefit from access
to the APCD.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
13
The selection process utilized herein is straightforward. Comparator hospitals for Charlotte Hungerford were selected
based on geography, size, and services, namely short-term acute hospitals. Comparator systems for Hartford HealthCare
were chosen based on size. For this reason, Yale-New Haven Health System (Y-NHHS) and Western Connecticut Health
Network were selected. The Hartford HealthCare system falls in between these two systems in terms of Net Patient
Service Revenue (NPSR).
Within any hospital or system, there is diversity in expertise, patient base, service array, care delivery approaches, and
staff. Each hospital or system has its own culture and community. This makes the selection of comparators an imperfect
process. Nonetheless, the use of comparators makes an important contribution to the analysis of the current cost and
market conditions in Connecticut and how the affiliation is likely to affect the cost of healthcare, access to healthcare
services, and the quality of services and care delivery.
Table 3: Transacting Parties and Their Respective Comparators Transacting Party Comparators
Charlotte Hungerford Five comparator hospitals including Bristol, Griffin, Sharon, Waterbury and New Milford.
Hartford HealthCare
Yale-New Haven Health System (Y-NHHS) was used as the sole comparator for all analyses except for the analysis of the financial performance measures. Y-NHHS is comprised of the following hospitals: Bridgeport, Greenwich, L + M, Yale New Haven, and St. Raphael. Western Connecticut Health Network was used as the second comparator for the financial performance analysis. The Western Connecticut Network is comprised of Danbury, New Milford, and Norwalk and was used to assess the financial performance of Hartford HealthCare.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
14
II. Overview of the Parties and the Affiliations This Preliminary Report examines a proposed affiliation of Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare, under which
Hartford HealthCare will become the sole corporate member of Charlotte Hungerford. Before enumerating the terms of
the proposed affiliation, this report describes the parties and their existing affiliations.
Hartford HealthCare
Hartford HealthCare is a Connecticut non-stock, tax-exempt corporation serving as the parent to a system of integrated
health care entities (the “System”). The Hartford HealthCare System includes five hospitals, a variety of non-acute
hospital provider networks and services, and a large multi-specialty physician group. Across this system, Hartford
HealthCare’s goal is to provide patients with a comprehensive, coordinated care experience driven by an organizational
structure where clinical care, education and research enable the utilization of the latest technology and operational
efficiencies.
Key components of the Hartford HealthCare System are:
Hartford Hospital has 867 beds and is a tertiary care teaching hospital affiliated with the University of
Connecticut School of Medicine (UConn) serving the New England region. Founded in 1854, Hartford Hospital
maintains the only Level 1 Trauma Center in the region and operates the state’s largest air ambulance system,
LIFE STAR.
The Hospital of Central Connecticut (Central Connecticut) was created in 2006 as a result of the merger of the
former New Britain General and Bradley Memorial Hospitals. With 446 licensed beds, it has been a member of
the System since 2011. Central Connecticut is also a UConn teaching hospital, with residency programs for
internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, otolaryngology, and general surgery.
The William H. Backus Hospital (Backus), the most recent hospital member to join the system, is licensed for
233 beds. Located in Norwich, Backus operates the only trauma center in Windham and New London Counties.
Backus-affiliated providers include health centers in Montville, Colchester, Ledyard, Norwich and North
Stonington, and the Plainfield Backus Emergency Care Center, which is a new standalone emergency
department and outpatient center.
MidState Medical Center is a community hospital with 156 beds, located in Meriden.
Windham Hospital is a community hospital with 144 beds, located in Windham.
Hartford HealthCare Medical Group (HHCMG) is a multi-specialty group that includes primary and urgent care
providers and physician specialists. Integrated Care Partners is a clinical integration organization that includes
HHCMG and other private physician practices.
In addition to these components of the System, Hartford HealthCare operates a network of behavioral health
providers, including the Institute of Living, Natchaug Hospital, and Rushford. The System also includes the
Hartford HealthCare Rehabilitation network and offers home care services and senior services.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
15
The Charlotte Hungerford Hospital
Charlotte Hungerford is a 122-bed acute care hospital founded in 1916 that serves an 11-town primary service area in
Northwest Connecticut. Charlotte Hungerford is organized as a Connecticut non-stock, tax-exempt corporation which
also holds interests in four subsidiaries that operate outpatient healthcare facilities or perform related community and
ancillary services for the Hospital (the Charlotte Hungerford Affiliates).
Charlotte Hungerford owns and operates a local physician network consisting of over 60 clinicians who are employed by
or contracted with the hospital, The Charlotte Hungerford Multi-Specialty Group (TCHMSG). These providers staff
outpatient hospital departments and coordinate care across the hospital and its affiliates and specialists.
The Charlotte Hungerford Affiliates include:
Advanced Medical Imaging of Northwestern Connecticut, a medical imaging center in Torrington.
MedConn Collection Agency, based in Rocky Hill.
Litchfield County Healthcare Services, a physician practice group based in Torrington.
The Cancer Care Fund of Litchfield Hills, an organization that provides support to cancer patients using a fund
administered by the Community Foundation of Northwestern Connecticut.
The degree to which Charlotte Hungerford owns the Affiliates differs and existing ownership arrangements will continue
under the proposed affiliation.
The Hospital has a range of off-campus sites, including the Center for Cancer Care in
Torrington, the Hungerford Sleep Laboratory in Winsted, the Hungerford Center for
Cardiac Rehabilitation and Diabetes care in Torrington, the Hungerford Imaging and
Mammography Center in Torrington, and Winsted, and Wound Care and Hyperbaric
Medicine Service located in Torrington. In addition, the Hospital operates two
outpatient emergency centers located in the towns of Torrington and Winsted, and an
urgent care center located in Torrington.
More than 90% of the Hospital’s inpatient discharges originate from 11 towns, and more than 50% of patients are from
Torrington. The Hospital is a full service, community hospital offering primary care, cancer care, cardiovascular medicine,
general surgery, maternity and women’s health, orthopedics, and behavioral healthcare among other services.
The Proposed Affiliation
The proposed affiliation will make Charlotte Hungerford a member of the Hartford HealthCare system. Per the CON
application, the parties do not propose any terminations or reductions in service at Charlotte Hungerford. The affiliation
was proposed after an extensive planning process and the issuance by Charlotte Hungerford of a Request for Proposal
(RFP) to potential partners. This section outlines that process and describes in detail the terms of the proposed
affiliation.
In February 2014, the Charlotte Hungerford Board of Governors began evaluating the need for a strategic affiliation with
a larger health system to sustain the Hospital’s operational, financial and clinical enterprise over the long-term. The
Board chartered an Independence Strategy Evaluation Committee to establish the guiding principles that Charlotte
Hungerford would use in evaluating any partnership or affiliation.
Towns in Charlotte Hungerford’s
primary service area include
Barkhamsted, Colebrook, Goshen,
Harwinton, New Hartford, Norfolk,
Litchfield, Morris, Thomaston,
Torrington, and Winchester (aka
Winsted)
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
16
The CON application and associated hearing testimony provided an in-depth description of the Board’s assessment and
planning process. It resulted in a consensus that Charlotte Hungerford should seek a strategic partner, driven by the
following motivating factors:
growing difficulty recruiting and retaining physicians in both primary care and key specialties;
declining and very slim hospital operating margins, inhibiting growth and delaying reinvestments in needed
facilities improvements;
an unfavorable payer mix, with publicly-funded programs (Medicaid and Medicare) comprising the large
majority of revenue;
declining inpatient discharges; and
a belief that broader healthcare trends toward more integrated care supports the need for expanded
outpatient services and access to a clinically-integrated care delivery system.
Charlotte Hungerford issued an RFP for a strategic partnership in July 2015. Hartford HealthCare was selected as the
health care system that most closely shared Charlotte Hungerford’s vision for the future of healthcare in the region and
best met the criteria established by the Committee. Notably, the choice built upon existing clinical partnerships already
established between Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford Healthcare in trauma care, interventional cardiology, and
neurology. Data submitted in the CON application indicates that a majority percentage of Charlotte Hungerford’s
emergency department transfers go to Hartford Hospital and Hartford Hospital receives a far greater share of Charlotte
Hungerford’s inpatient transfers than from any other hospital.
The proposed affiliation will not change Charlotte Hungerford’s status as a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, and
Charlotte Hungerford will retain a separate hospital license. The governing body of Charlotte Hungerford will remain in
place to include the current 15 members of the present Board of Directors, along with the addition of 4 directors
appointed by Hartford HealthCare. The Hartford HealthCare Board of Directors will include, for a three-year transition
period, 2 individuals serving on the Charlotte Hungerford Board directly prior to the closing of the affiliation.
The Affiliation Agreement between the parties requires Hartford HealthCare to invest up to $73 million for the benefit of
Charlotte Hungerford. In addition, Hartford Healthcare will provide $3 million to certain community organizations in
Charlotte Hungerford’s service area. These investments include:
$50 million over seven years to fund maintenance and capital projects for Charlotte Hungerford, which shall be
identified through a strategic planning process outlined in the Affiliation Agreement. At least $20 million of this
amount will be invested within the first four years of the affiliation to fund certain emergency department
renovations, infrastructure and physical plant improvements, and outpatient facility upgrades.
An additional $3 million to support medical staff development and recruitment efforts over the three-year
transition period.
In addition to the $53 million committed above, the Affiliation Agreement establishes that Hartford Healthcare, in its
discretion, may make up to $20 million in investments in program and service opportunities in the local service area,
based upon whether any proposed projects enhance and support the level of services provided at Charlotte Hungerford
and satisfy other specified investment criteria.
Following the closing date, Hartford HealthCare will also make a repetitive grant of $100,000 for each of 5 consecutive
years in the name of Charlotte Hungerford to Fit Together of Northwest Connecticut to support Litchfield County’s
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
17
participation in a Community Transformational Grant Program sponsored by the CDC to create healthier communities by
making healthy living easier and more affordable.
Finally, Hartford HealthCare will fund a distribution by Charlotte Hungerford of $2.5 million to Northwest Connecticut
Community Foundation, Inc., a tax-exempt charitable organization, for the express purpose of enhancing economic and
community development in Charlotte Hungerford’s service area.
The CON application outlines “other benefits” that demonstrate the parties’ intent to work collaboratively to implement
initiatives that will make the affiliation successful. Hartford HealthCare will also be responsible for the capital and
installation costs incurred by Charlotte Hungerford to support the initial installation of an electronic health record
platform. In general, these initiatives demonstrate a commitment to establish a wide range of existing services and
programs elsewhere operated by Hartford HealthCare into the Northwest region. These initiatives appear to be
designed to simultaneously enhance the services available at Charlotte Hungerford and in the Northwest region and to
expand the footprint of Hartford HealthCare into that region.
See Figure 1: Key Facts; Transacting Parties: Charlotte Hungerford Hospital and the Hartford HealthCare System for an
overview of the key facts about the transacting parties.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
18
Source: Several sources were used to describe the transacting parties, including data and information from CT DPH, Office of Health
Care Access and the Department of Social Services, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and The Leapfrog Group.
Beds and Market Share
(2015)
Charlotte Hungerford: 122 or 1.4%
of all beds in the state
Hartford HealthCare: 1,679 or 19.4% of all beds in the state
Volume - All Payers
Hospital Discharges (2015)
Charlotte Hungerford: 6,030
Hartford HealthCare: 43,450
Hospital
Case Mix Index (CMI) (2015)
Charlotte Hungerford: 1.24
Hartford HealthCare: 1.47
Payer Mix
Non Gov't Share of Revenue,
% (2015)
Charlotte Hungerford: 23.7%
Hartford HealthCare: 30%
Access
Medicaid Share of Hospital Discharges, % of total (2015)
Charlotte Hungerford: 19.9%
Hartford HealthCare: 24.6%
Quality
The Leapfrog Group Safety Grade, (2013-2017)
Charlotte Hungerford: C/D
Hartford HealthCare: B/C
Avg. Cost to Medicaid Index, relative to avg. cost for all CT. hospitals (2014)
Charlotte Hungerford: .70
(lower than the state average)
Hartford HealthCare: 1.09
(higher than the state average)
Operating Margin, %
(2016)
Charlotte Hungerford: -5.8%
Hartford HealthCare: 5.1%
Average Age of Plant (AAOP),
in years (2015)
Charlotte Hungerford: 20.4
Hartford HealthCare: 13.1
Figure 1: Key Facts
Transacting Parties: Charlotte Hungerford Hospital and the Hartford HealthCare System
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
19
III. Analysis of Parties’ Baseline Performance and Impact
A. Costs and Market Factors
In this section, an examination was conducted of the parties’ baseline performance on costs and market prior to the
affiliation, and a projection of what is likely to happen post affiliation.
To develop a composite picture of the costs and market for the transacting parties, several sources of data and
information were relied upon. Cost and market factors were examined based on the scope of the CMIR including the
parties’ financial condition, size and market share, the average cost to Medicaid (or the revenue received by providers)
per Medicaid admission and outpatient visit, trends in these costs, and hospital case mix.
KEY FINDINGS:
1. Financial performance
Charlotte Hungerford is facing significant financial challenges that are likely to continue to deepen without an
intervention. Hartford HealthCare is in strong financial condition. Hartford HealthCare could likely weather any
potential negative impact from the affiliation, with the ability to invest in a turn-around for Charlotte Hungerford.
2. Size and market share for transacting parties
Charlotte Hungerford, with 122 beds in 2015, represents 1.4% of all the beds in Connecticut. As such, Charlotte
Hungerford is one of the smallest hospitals in the state. Its selected comparators represent between 1.1% and 3.3%
of all the beds in the state. Hartford HealthCare is the 2nd largest health system in the state. Hartford HealthCare
system had 1,679 beds in 2015 and represents 19.4% of all the beds in the state. In comparison, Y-NHHS, is the
largest health system in the state and represented 27% of the total beds in the state in 2015.
3. Medicaid payment
Charlotte Hungerford receives average payments from Medicaid per admission and per outpatient visit that are
lower than the statewide average. Relative to its comparators, Charlotte Hungerford receives one of the lowest
average payments from Medicaid, based on Medicaid paid claims for 2014.
4. Medicaid trends
Payments from Medicaid per admission and per visit have increased for Charlotte Hungerford and decreased for
Hartford HealthCare over the last three years. Medicaid’s average cost per admission and visit has been flat during
this period accounting for all claims paid to all hospitals.
5. Prices
Without the benefit of strong data on the parties, the evidence on affiliations of this type create the strong
likelihood of increases in Charlotte Hungerford’s prices overtime. Charlotte Hungerford has a problem with declining
NPSR today. The decline in NPSR is a likely result of several factors driving revenue including price, utilization,
provider mix (types of providers), and service mix (types of services). Provider consolidations or alignments can
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
20
affect all such factors including prices.4 Post affiliation, Charlotte Hungerford may be able to secure price increases
in prices from commercial payers. See Box 1: Future Cost and Market Analyses Should Leverage More
Comprehensive Data Sources for a discussion about leveraging more comprehensive data sources in future CMIRs.
6. Case mix
As of 2015, the overall case mix index (CMI) at Charlotte Hungerford was 1.24, and 1.47 for Hartford HealthCare
system. These CMIs are for all payer business. The CMI for Hartford HealthCare system reflects the average across all
of Hartford HealthCare’s hospitals weighted by hospital discharges. Charlotte’s CMI reflects a lower level of acuity in
its patient base than in the Hartford health system. Y-NHHS has a CMI that is higher than the CMI for Hartford
HealthCare system.
4 See JAMA, December 2015. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2463591. See Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/health-care-market-consolidations-impacts-on-costs-quality-and-access/. See also Massachusetts Health Policy Commission (HPC). http://www.mass.gov/anf/docs/hpc/hpc-preliminary-review-of-phs-ssh-harbor-12-18-2013.pdf.
Box 1. Future Cost and Market Analyses Should Leverage More Comprehensive Data Sources
Our ability to examine the commercial market for the parties was significantly comprised by the lack of data on the
parties’ commercial market. Commercial data is critical to an examination of TME for patients in health plans and to
assess a provider’s health adjusted total medical expenses and prices. The lack of commercial data is important,
because hospitals may have more ability to negotiate with commercial payers than with government payers around
payment and prices. Due to this data limitation, a comprehensive analysis of the cost and market conditions could
not be performed for the following: total health care expenditures state wide, health status adjusted TME for the
transacting parties and its comparators, and cost and market trends for the transacting parties and their
comparators. With respect to this CMIR, data sources were identified to provide general information about relative
prices and relative health status of patients. Moreover, Charlotte Hungerford’s commercial share of NPSR is low
relative to other hospitals, which does not eliminate the issue but does make it less problematic and impactful from
a policy perspective. Future CMIRs would benefit from the use of an All-Payer Claims Database (APCD) to examine
costs market trends in price and health status. If all payer data were fully available and updated, OHCA could
quantify total health care expenditures adjusted for health status for providers or systems.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
21
A.1. Analysis of the Baseline Performance
An examination of several measures was conducted to establish the cost and market baseline for Charlotte Hungerford
and for Hartford HealthCare. The baseline results for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare were then
compared to their comparators.
Financial Condition of the Parties
The financial condition of the parties was examined by reviewing five years of audited financial statements (AFS) from
Fiscal Year 2012 to 2016 for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare. AFS’ for Fiscal Years 2012 through 2015 for
Charlotte Hungerford’s and Hartford HealthCare’s comparators were examined. The key measures of financial
performance or financial condition comprising the analysis are outlined in Table 4: Financial Condition of the Parties.
Table 4: Financial Condition of the Parties Financial Performance
Measure Description of Measure
1 Net patient service revenue (NPSR)
This measures the provider’s total inpatient and outpatient revenue from all payers including the government and other third-party payers as well as patients for services provided to patients. NPSR reflects certain deductions including free care charges and contractual obligations.
2 Total operating revenue This measures total operating revenue that is comprehensive of all revenue including NPSR and other revenues generated through hospital operations (e.g. it could include cafeteria revenues).
3 Operating income This measures the hospital’s or system’s profitability from patient care services and other operations. It is calculated as follows: total operating revenues less total operating expenses.
4 Operating margin This measures the hospital’s or system’s profitability from patient care services and other operations.
5 Current ratio This measures the hospital’s or system’s ability to meet its current liabilities with its current assets. A ratio of 1.0 or higher indicates that all current liabilities could be covered by the existing current assets. This is calculated as follows: total current assets divided by total current liabilities (current refers to asset that can be converted into cash within 12 months and liabilities that will need to be paid within 12 months).
6 Days cash on hand This measures the number of days of operating expenses that the system could pay with its current available cash, cash equivalents, and readily available investments. For purposes of our calculation, it was: “potentially available cash and investments,” (as determined by the reviewers), divided by average operating expenses per day. For a full year, average operating expenses per day would just be total operating expenses divided by 365.
7 Age of the plant or average age of the plant
This measures the average age of the hospital’s or system’s facilities, including capital improvements and major equipment purchases. This was calculated as follows: the average age of plant by dividing accumulated depreciation by the most current year’s depreciation expense, which represents a good mathematical proxy for average age.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
22
Overall Financial Condition of the Parties and its Comparators
Key measures of the financial condition of the transacting parties and its comparators were reviewed. Two key measures
are Net Patient Service Revenue (NPSR) and operating margin.
A hospital’s NPSR and operating margins are critically important. NPSR must be positive for hospitals to remain in a
strong financial condition. Operating margins reflect the overall financial solvency of the hospital. These measures
similarly apply at a system level.
There is some evidence to suggest that a hospital’s financial condition may be correlated with quality; for example, in
one study, the author found a significant and statistical relationship between the financial performance of the hospital
and quality. The author concludes that, “when a hospital made more profit, [it] had the capacity to finance investment
using debt, paid higher wages presumably to attract more skilled nurses, its quality of care would generally improve.”5
This study also points out the importance of carefully monitoring the quality of hospitals with poor financial
performance.
Findings based upon a comprehensive analysis of the AFS’ for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare include:
1. Charlotte Hungerford is in a weak financial condition, with negative operating results for two consecutive years
due to a steady erosion of NPSR. Based upon our examination of the AFS’, Charlotte Hungerford’s deteriorating
financial condition also reflects the market for other small hospitals in Connecticut.
2. Hartford HealthCare is in relatively strong financial condition, with positive operating results for three
consecutive years including ending FY 2016 with a positive operating margin of 5.1%. Hartford HealthCare’s
comparators, however, are in a stronger financial condition overall.
The tables included in the Appendix section of this report provide evidence of the financial condition of the transacting
parties and its comparators. These tables include several measures including the NPSR and the operating margin at the
hospital level for Charlotte Hungerford and its comparators, and at the system level for Hartford HealthCare and its
comparators. Hartford HealthCare comparators for this portion of the CMIR are Y-NHHS and Western Connecticut
Health Network.
Charlotte Hungerford in Weak Financial Condition, Hartford HealthCare in Strong Financial Condition
Charlotte Hungerford’s financial condition has been steadily eroding. As Figure 2: Operating Margin Charlotte
Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare shows, the financial conditions for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare
are starkly different. Charlotte Hungerford’s condition went from a positive result of .1% to a negative result or -5.8%
between FY 2012 and FY 2016. Conversely, and more positively, Hartford HealthCare’s financial condition has moved
into a positive direction over the last three years from 2.1% in 2014 to 5.1% in 2016.
5 Dong, Gang Nathan. “Performing Well in Financial Management and Quality of Care: Evidence from Hospital Process Measures for
Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease.” BMC Health Services Research 15 (2015): 45. PMC. Web. 2 June 2017.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
23
Figure 2: Operating Margin Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare
Source: CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access, based upon an analysis of Audited Financial Statements for hospitals for Fiscal Years
2012-2016.
Charlotte Hungerford and its Comparators
Charlotte Hungerford and its comparators are experiencing very similar financial situations. As Figure 3: Operating
Margin Charlotte Hungerford and Comparators illustrates, the financial condition of Charlotte Hungerford’s
comparators, taken as a group, tell an important story to Connecticut policymakers about Charlotte Hungerford’s
financial condition in the context of the Connecticut healthcare market. A more comprehensive level of detail on the
financial condition of Charlotte Hungerford and its comparators can be found in the Appendix section of this report.
Figure 3: Operating Margin Charlotte Hungerford and Comparators shows a worsening trend for Charlotte Hungerford’s
comparators from FY 2012 to FY 2015. It is possible that this trend will continue to worsen for Charlotte’s comparators,
just as the trend for Charlotte Hungerford has continued to decline from -1.2% in 2015 to -5.8% in 2016 as shown in
Figure 2.
0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
-1.2%
-5.8%
3.7%
-0.6%
2.1%
1.3%
5.1%
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
Operating Margin (%) for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCareFY 2012-2016
Charlotte Hungerford Hartford HealthCare
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
24
Figure 3: Operating Margin Charlotte Hungerford and Comparators
Source: CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access, based upon an analysis of Audited Financial Statements for hospitals for Fiscal Years
2012-2015.
0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
-1.2%
-0.8%-0.6%
-0.9%
-3.5%-4.0%
-3.5%
-3.0%
-2.5%
-2.0%
-1.5%
-1.0%
-0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Operating Margin (%)Charlotte Hungerford and its Comparators FY 2012-2015
Charlotte Hungerford Comparators
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
25
Hartford HealthCare and its Comparators
The financial picture for the Hartford HealthCare system is positive. As shown in Figure 4: Operating Margin Hartford
HealthCare and Comparators, the operating margins for Hartford HealthCare have been positive for all but one of the
four consecutive fiscal years between 2012 and 2015. Operating margins for its comparators, Y-NHHS and Western
Connecticut, shown together, have also been positive for all four years. A more comprehensive level of detail on the
financial condition of Hartford HealthCare and its comparators can be found in the Appendix section of this report. The
tables in the appendix provide an important account of Hartford HealthCare and its strength in its NPSR, operating
margin and days of cash on hand.
Figure 4: Operating Margin Hartford HealthCare and Comparators
Source: CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access, based upon an analysis of Audited Financial Statements for hospitals for Fiscal Years
2012-2015.
The Average Age of the Plant
The Average Age of the Plant (AAOP) measures the average age of the hospital’s or system’s facilities, including capital
improvements and major equipment purchases. This measure is important to examine more closely, because of
Hartford HealthCare’s plans, as outlined in the proposed affiliation, to make significant investments into Charlotte
Hungerford hospital.
Three major considerations are relevant to the average age of the plant:
1. Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare
The AAOP for Charlotte Hungerford is 20.4 years, which is twice the median age of 11 for all hospitals in the U.S,
based on data from the American Hospital Association (AHA).6 Hartford HealthCare as a system has a lower AAOP
6 “Average Age of Plant: Hospitals about 11 years.” American Hospital Association Resource Center. 2015. Web. 2 June 2017.
3.7%
-0.6%
2.1%
1.3%
5.0%
4.0%
4.6%
3.6%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Operating Margin (%)Hartford HealthCare and its Comparators FY 2012-2015
Hartford HealthCare Comparators
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
26
than Charlotte Hungerford, but Hartford HealthCare has an AAOP that is higher than its comparators and higher
than the median age of 11.
2. Health systems and all hospitals
Figure 5: Average Age of Plant illustrates the difference between the systems and the smaller hospitals. Smaller
hospitals including Charlotte Hungerford fell within a range of 17.2 to 33.7 years. The three largest health systems
ranged between 8.3 and 13.1 years and are comparatively much younger than the smaller community hospitals.
3. Patient experience
The AAOP has implications for patient experience but there are differences in points of view on this. The literature
set forth below includes many discussions about the relationship between the age of the plant – or conditions of the
facility – and the patient experience.
One report by the AHA, Improving the Patient Experience Through the Health Care Physical Environment – an
industry perspective on age – reports that the physical environment affects many areas included in the HCAHPS
survey. “For example, research has shown that patients’ perception of cleanliness can be improved with
lighting, decor choices and furniture selection. Pain management is influenced by positive distractions, such as
views of art and nature. Staff responsiveness can be affected by the layout of a hospital unit, and
communication scores can improve when hospitals provide quiet spaces for staff to discuss issues with
patients.”7
A second study offers that the physical environment affects the healing process and the well-being of patients
and their families, and staff. The study highlights some design features related to the physical environment and
the well-being of patient families and staff including single-patient rooms, identical rooms, technical equipment
and indoor (environmental) quality.8
Finally, the Health Care Financial Management Association notes that “new or renovated facility can improve
the patient experience that have no scientific ’evidenced based’ proof but regardless uplift the spirit and
reduce anxiety through perceived cleanliness, soothing lighting and homelike attributes. As the measurement
of environmental factors becomes even more sophisticated, it may be able to judge even more of what of
these elements contributes most to patient satisfaction so resources can best be allocated in the most
judicious manner. In the meantime, architects and designers will continue to work with administrators and
caregivers to understand what operational improvements can be best supported by the physical environment
and which of these improvements most improve the patient and family experience.”9
7 American Hospital Association. The American Society for Healthcare Engineering. “Improving the Patient Experience Through the
Health Care Physical Environment.” 2016. Web. 2 June 2017. 8 Huisman, E.R.C.M, Morales E, van Hoof, J., Kort, H.S.M. “Healing Environment: A Review of the Impact of Physical Environment
Factors on Users.” 2012. Web. 2 June 2017. 9 Healthcare Financial Management Association. “Key Hospital Financial Statistics and Ratio Medians: Glossary of Formulas.” Web. 2
June 2017.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
27
Figure 5: Average Age of Plant
Source: CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access, based upon an analysis of Audited Financial Statements for hospitals for Fiscal Years
2012-2015.
Size and Market Share
The size and market share of Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare were examined using three measures of
size and market share: hospital beds, hospital discharges, and NPSR. Table 5: Hospital Market Shares for Charlotte
Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare and Its Comparators provides data on the three measures for 2015.
KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE:
1. Charlotte Hungerford’s Size and Market Share
Charlotte Hungerford, a small, acute care hospital with 122 beds, represents 1.4% of the total number of beds in the
state and 1.5% of total hospital discharges. Similarly, Charlotte Hungerford represents 1.3% of the state’s NPSR for
all hospitals. There are only three hospitals in Connecticut that are smaller than Charlotte Hungerford. With 1.4%
share of the beds statewide, Charlotte Hungerford is closer in size to Sharon hospital than Waterbury hospital.
2. Hartford HealthCare Size and Market Share
Hartford HealthCare is comprised of five hospitals and has a total of 1,679 beds, which represents 19.4% of total
beds in the state, 10.8% of total hospital discharges, and a larger share of NPSR at 26.1%. Hartford HealthCare is the
2nd largest health system in the state, and includes Hartford hospital, which is the 2nd largest hospital in the state.
Hartford HealthCare was compared to Y-NHHS, which is much larger than Hartford HealthCare system. Y-NHHS has
2,359 beds and represents 27.3% of the total number of beds in the state, 31.3% of the total hospital discharges,
and 40.6% of NPSR. Y-NHHS has roughly three times as many hospital discharges as Hartford HealthCare’s 43,350.
8.3
12.0 13.1
17.2
20.4 21.7
33.7
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Y-NHHS Western CT HartfordHealthCare
Bristol CharlotteHungerford
Griffin Waterbury
Average Age of the Plant, in years (FY 2015)
The AAOP for the three systems are younger in years than the relatively smaller, short-term acute hospitals.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
28
Table 5: Hospital Market Shares for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare and Its Comparators
Charlotte Hungerford and Its Comparators Hartford HealthCare
and Y-NHHS
Charlotte Hungerford
Sharon Bristol Griffin Waterbury Hartford HealthCare
Y-NHHHS
Beds 122 94 154 180 282 1,679 2,359
All Hospital Discharges
6,030 2,466 7,071 6,950 11,646 43,350 125,633
NPSR ($000) $113,736 $49,486 133,328 $142,949 $192,704 $2,239,380 $3,492,685
Market Share of Beds, Hospital Discharges, Net Patient Service Revenue
Beds 1.4% 1.1% 1.8% 2.1% 3.3% 19.4% 27.3%
All Hospital Discharges
1.5% 0.6% 1.8% 1.7% 2.9% 10.8% 31.3%
NPSR 1.3% 0.6% 1.6% 1.7% 2.2% 26.1% 40.6%
Source: Based upon an analysis of data and information collected by CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access.
Average “Cost” Per Medicaid Admission and Medicaid Visit
Two measures were examined including the average cost per admission and the average cost per outpatient visit to
Medicaid for the transacting parties and their comparators, based on the paid claims data for Medicaid-covered
admission and Medicaid-covered visits. Data for CY 2014 was used, since this year represented the most recent and
most complete source of data. The average cost was calculated by dividing the total claims paid by Medicaid by the total
number of admissions.
The average cost to Medicaid per admission or visit represents more than price. Several factors are reflected in the
average cost including the service provided, the intensity of services, and the price. As such, the average cost per unit of
service is not a substitute for price but provides a useful metric for understanding the parties’ role in the Medicaid
market.
Figures 6 through 10 (Figure 6: Relative Average Cost, Figure 7: Relative Cost per Admission; Charlotte Hungerford,
Figure 8: Relative Cost per Outpatient Visit; Charlotte Hungerford, Figure 9: Relative Cost per Admission; Hartford
HealthCare, and Figure 10: Relative Cost per Outpatient Visit; Hartford HealthCare) show the average cost per admission
and visit for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare, and how they compare to their comparators and to the
average for the state based on an account of all hospitals included in the Medicaid claims data from DSS. An average for
two groups of hospitals was also calculated, which included the transacting party. A “group” average was calculated for
Charlotte Hungerford and its comparators which included Charlotte Hungerford in the calculation; and, a “group”
average was calculated for Hartford HealthCare and its comparators which included Hartford HealthCare in the
calculation.
KEY FINDINGS, ONLY APPLICABLE TO MEDICAID, INCLUDE:
1. Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare
A comparison between what Medicaid pays Charlotte Hungerford to what Medicaid pays Hartford HealthCare was
made. Charlotte Hungerford receives less revenue per admission and less revenue per visit than Hartford
HealthCare. Charlotte Hungerford ‘s average cost per admission and average cost per visit to Medicaid is about 70%
of the statewide average. The statewide average is the average for all hospitals. Hartford HealthCare’s average
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
29
payment from Medicaid per admission is 86% of the statewide average and its average payment per outpatient visit
is 104% of the statewide average. See Figure 6.
2. Charlotte Hungerford
A comparison between what Medicaid pays Charlotte Hungerford and what it pays its comparators was made using
two benchmarks (1) the average cost for the group which includes Charlotte Hungerford and its comparators; and
(2) the statewide average cost. Charlotte Hungerford ‘s average cost per admission is 98% of the average for its
comparator group, but is higher than what Bristol and Sharon are paid. Charlotte Hungerford’s average cost per visit
is 109% of the average cost for the group; only Griffin has a higher average cost than Charlotte Hungerford for this
small group. See Figures 7 and 8.
3. Hartford HealthCare
A comparison between what Medicaid pays Hartford HealthCare and what it pays to Y-NHHS was made. Hartford
HealthCare’s average payment from Medicaid per admission, at the system level, is 91% of the average for the pair.
Y-NNHS’ average cost is 106% of the average for the pair. At the system level, relative to the state’s average,
Hartford HealthCare is below 86% of the average for the state, and Y-NNHS falls at the average. In terms of
outpatient visits, both systems fall above the statewide average but Y-NNHS receives an average payment that is
127% of the statewide average compared to 104% for Hartford HealthCare. See Figures 9 and 10.
Comparisons in the Average Payment from Medicaid Per Hospital Admission and Outpatient Visit for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare System and its Comparators
Figure 6: Relative Average Cost
Source: CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access, based upon an analysis of DSS Medicaid data.
0.697 0.86
0.699
1.04
-
0.500
1.000
1.500
Charlotte Hungerford Hartford HealthCare
Relative Average Cost for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare, Relative to State Average, Medicaid 2014
Inpatient Outpatient
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
30
Figure 7: Relative Cost per Admission; Charlotte Hungerford
Source: CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access, based upon an analysis of DSS Medicaid data.
Figure 8: Relative Cost per Outpatient Visit; Charlotte Hungerford
Source: CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access, based upon an analysis of DSS Medicaid data.
0.98 0.70 0.73
0.52
1.04 0.74 0.80
0.57
1.15 0.82
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
Relative to the Group Average Relative to the State Average
Relative Cost per Admission for Charlotte Hungerford and its Comparators, Medicaid, 2014
Charlotte Hungerford Bristol Griffin Sharon Waterbury
0.62 0.39
0.67 0.43
0.90
0.58
1.09
0.699
1.18
0.75
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
Relative to the Group Average Relative to the State Average
Relative Cost per Outpatient Visit for Charlotte Hungerford and its Comparators, Medicaid 2014
Sharon Waterbury Bristol Charlotte Hungerford Griffin
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
31
Figure 9: Relative Cost per Admission; Hartford HealthCare
Source: CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access, based upon an analysis of DSS Medicaid data.
Figure 10: Relative Cost per Outpatient Visit; Hartford HealthCare
Source: CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access, based upon an analysis of DSS Medicaid data.
0.91 0.86 1.06 0.995
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
Relative to the Group Average Relative to the State Average
Relative Cost per Admission for Hartford HealthCare and Y-NHHS, Medicaid 2014
Hartford HealthCare Y-NHHS
0.89 1.04 1.09
1.27
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
Relative to the Group Average Relative to the State Average
Relative Cost per Outpatient Visit for Hartford HealthCare and Y-NHHS, Medicaid 2014
Hartford HealthCare Y-NHHS
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
32
Costs and Cost Trends
An examination was performed of the trends for the average payment per admission from Medicaid for the transacting
parties and its comparators in the Medicaid market only. For Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare, trends in
the average payment per inpatient admission for each CY were examined. This analysis was performed for Charlotte
Hungerford and Hartford hospital using four years of Medicaid data, including CYs 2012-2014.10 The average trends are
shown in Table 6: Trend for the Average Payment from Medicaid Per Hospital Admission (2012-2014).
In addition to this section’s discussion about trends, see also discussion about the impact of provider consolidations on
bargaining power as provided in Box 2: A Review of the Evidence on the Effect of Provider Consolidations on Bargaining
Power with Insurers.
KEY FINDINGS, ONLY APPLICABLE TO MEDICAID, INCLUDE:
1. Medicaid trends for Charlotte Hungerford
From CY 2012-2014, Charlotte Hungerford experienced increases in the average payment received per admission.
Per admission, revenue increased by 2.3% from CY 2012-2013, and by 14.7% from CY 2013 to 2014. The compound
average growth rate was 8.3% from CY 2012-2014.
2. Medicaid trends for Hartford HealthCare
Data was not available for the entire Hartford Healthcare system, but data was available for Hartford hospital, which
represents about 50% of Hartford HealthCare’s total Medicaid admissions. Hartford hospital experienced a negative
trend between CY 2012-2014; the CAGR was -1.7%.
3. Medicaid trends for all hospitals or the statewide average
Trends in the average cost per admission to Medicaid were nearly flat across the state. The data shows the average
payment to Medicaid increasing and then decreasing between CY 2012-CY 2014, with the overall effect of remaining
nearly flat over this period.
Table 6: Trend for the Average Payment from Medicaid Per Hospital Admission (2012-2014) CY 2012-2013 CY 2013-2014 Compound Average
Growth Rate (CAGR) CY 2012-2014
Charlotte Hungerford 2.3% 14.7% 8.3%
Hartford Hospital -2.2% -1.3% -1.7%
All Connecticut Hospitals (“State”) -4.1% 5.7% 0.7%
Source: CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access, based upon an analysis of DSS Medicaid data.
10 Data was available for FY 2015 but was not used because it was not fully complete due to the lag in claims payment.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
33
Box 2. A Review of the Evidence on the Effect of Provider Consolidations on Bargaining Power with Insurers
Based on the testimony of economist Paul Ginsberg of the Brookings Institution, “Health care markets are becoming
more consolidated, causing price increases for purchasers of health services, and this trend will continue for the
foreseeable future despite anti-trust enforcement.” 1
The transacting parties testified that this affiliation would not increase prices for Charlotte Hungerford hospital.
OHCA should closely monitor prices for the parties post affiliation to determine whether that proves accurate. In the
meantime, OHCA should turn to the documented evidence, which is substantial, that consolidations do lead to higher
prices.
A direct result of this transaction is that Charlotte Hungerford, currently an independent community hospital with its
own insurer contracts, will negotiate commercial insurer contracts for both hospital and affiliated physician
reimbursement with Hartford HealthCare. Hartford HealthCare is a much larger provider with significantly greater
bargaining power in such negotiations than Charlotte Hungerford. In other words, for commercial insurance
contracts negotiated by or on behalf of Charlotte Hungerford, the affiliation will lead to a shift in bargaining power in
favor of Charlotte Hungerford. That increased bargaining power can lead to higher negotiated prices is both a fairly
intuitive conclusion and a proposition that has been, particularly over the last decade, confirmed by a wide range of
health services researchers and health economists.2 It is well established that provider consolidation can enhance
bargaining power with insurers3, and that this conclusion holds for both hospital consolidation4 and affiliations that
consolidate physician practices.5 Federal and state regulators have also emphasized the importance of market
leverage on price growth. The Federal Trade Commission, which enforces federal antitrust laws, has reported that
“[m]ost studies of the relationship between competition and hospital prices generally find increased hospital
concentration is associated with increased price.”6 In Massachusetts, an Attorney General’s examination of health
care market trends found that “price variations are correlated to market leverage as measured by the relative market
position of the [provider] compared with other [providers] within a geographic region.”7 In fact, attention on the
influence of provider market power has led in Massachusetts to the creation of a state agency that, among other
things, conducts market reviews very similar to those authorized by Section 639f.
Sources: 1. Health care market consolidations: impacts on cost, quality and access. Testimony, Paul Ginsberg. March 16, 2016.
See: https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/health-care-market-consolidations-impacts-on-costs-quality-and-access/
2. Berenson, R., Ginsburg, P., Christianson, J., Yee, T., The Growing Power Of Some Providers To Win Steep Payment Increases From Insurers Suggests
Policy Remedies May Be Needed, Health Aff May 2012 31:5973-981; doi 10.1277/hlthaff.2011.0920; Gaynor M., Town R., The Impact of Hospital
Consolidation—Update, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (The Synthesis Project, Policy Brief No. 9), June 2012, available at
http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2012/rwjf73261
3. Roberts, E., Mehrotra, A., McWilliams, J., High-Price And Low-Price Physician Practices Do Not Differ Significantly On Care Quality Or Efficiency, Health
Aff May 2017 36:5855-864; doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1266
4. Cooper, Z., Craig, S., Gaynor, M., Van Reenen, J., The Price Ain’t Right? Hospital Prices and Health Spending on the Privately Insured, National Bureau
of Economic Research Working Paper 21815 available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w21815
5. Baker L.C., Bundorf M.K., Royalty A.B., Levin Z., Physician Practice Competition and Prices Paid by Private Insurers for Office Visits, JAMA.2014;
312(16):1653–62.
6. Federal Trade Commission & U.S. Dept. of Justice, Improving Healthcare: A Dose of Competition (July 2004), available at
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/healthcare/040723healthcarerpt.pdf.
7. Report of the Massachusetts Attorney General. 2010, Examination of Health Care Cost Trends and Cost Drivers, Report for annual public hearing,
Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
34
Case Mix
An examination of the overall case mix of each hospital was performed by relying upon the hospital’s case mix index
(CMI). The CMI reflects differences in the diversity, clinical complexity, and the need for resources in the population of
all patients at a hospital. A hospital’s CMI measures, “acuity based on the average level of resources needed for the
procedures performed for that hospital’s patients.”11 As such, the CMI can be used to examine the variation in acuity
across the state and to provide evidence of the role that each hospital plays in providing services in the Connecticut
market.
The CMI can also be used to adjust prices and costs for the acuity level of the hospital’s patients. That analysis was not
conducted in this CMIR, due to the lack of data and uncertainty around the data that was available. The CMIs for
Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare and its comparators are provided in Figure 11: Case Mix Index and Figure
12: Case Mix Index; Hartford HealthCare.
KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE:
1. Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare
Charlotte Hungerford has a much lower CMI than Hartford HealthCare. Charlotte Hungerford has a CMI of 1.24;
Hartford HealthCare has an overall CMI of 1.47. That CMI reflects the weighted average of CMIs across all hospitals
that comprise Hartford HealthCare. Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare fall on either side of the
statewide CMI. See Figure 11.
2. Charlotte Hungerford and its Comparators
Charlotte Hungerford has a higher level of acuity than three (3) of its comparators. Charlotte Hungerford and its
comparators have a CMI below the statewide average. This figure is not shown.
3. Hartford HealthCare and its Comparator
The acuity levels of the patients serviced by Hartford and its largest hospital, Hartford hospital, and the Yale New
Haven Health System and Yale-New Haven hospital are higher than the statewide average. Hartford hospital has the
highest acuity level at 1.6, followed by New Haven hospital with a CMI of 1.53. Hartford hospital and Yale-New
Haven hospital have the highest CMIs for short-term acute care hospitals in the state of Connecticut.12 See Figure 12.
11 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Health Policy Commission. “Community Hospitals as a Crossroads: Findings from an Examination of the Massachusetts Health Care System.” 2016. Web. 2 June 2016. 12 The only exception to this finding is Connecticut Children’s hospital, which has a higher CMI than Hartford hospital and YNHH.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
35
Figure 11: Case Mix Index
Source: Based upon an analysis of CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access data on hospital case mix.
Figure 12: Case Mix Index; Hartford HealthCare
Source: Based upon an analysis of CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access data on hospital case mix.
1.24
1.40
1.47
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
Charlotte Hungerford Statewide Hartford HealthCare
Case Mix Index for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare,
All Payer, 2015
1.40 1.44 1.47
1.53 1.60
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
Statewide Y-NHHS Hartford HealthCare YNHH Hartford Hosp.
Case Mix Index for Hartford HealthCare and Y-NHHS, and its Largest Hospitals,
All Payer, 2015
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
36
A.2. Impact Analysis
As our baseline analysis indicates, a solid understanding has been developed of the costs and market for Charlotte
Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare, and more broadly, the Connecticut health care market.
Section 639f raises several questions relevant to how the proposed affiliation will affect the cost and market in
Connecticut with an interest to the specific impact on:
1. the financial condition of the transacting parties;
2. the size and market share of the transacting parties;
3. the prices of the transacting parties; and
4. the cost and cost trends in comparison to total health care expenditures state wide.
Two separate impact analyses are provided in this section as shown in the following tables: Table 7: Impact Analysis of
the Proposed Affiliation on Connecticut and Table 8: Impact of the Proposed Affiliation on Hartford HealthCare System.
KEY FINDINGS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED AFFILIATION ON COSTS AND MARKET:
1. Charlotte Hungerford is a small hospital and would therefore only increase Hartford HealthCare’s market share
by less than 2 percentage points, when measured by number of beds, discharges or NPSR. See Table 7.
Table 7: Impact Analysis of the Proposed Affiliation on Connecticut Data (2015) Hartford
HealthCare without Charlotte Hungerford
Combined: Hartford Health System with Charlotte Hungerford
Statewide Figures (2015)
Market Share without Charlotte Hungerford
Market Share with Charlotte Hungerford
Difference in Market Share
Beds 1,679 1,801 8,647 19% 21% 1.4%
Hospital Discharges 43,350 49,380 401,471 11% 12% 1.5%
NPSR ($s) 2,239,380,000 2,353,116,000 8,593,230,174 26% 27% 1.3%
Source: Based upon an analysis of data and information collected by CT DPH, Office of Healthcare Access.
2. The most significant impact of this affiliation is on Charlotte Hungerford financially; the proposed affiliation
would improve Charlotte Hungerford’s financial condition. Charlotte Hungerford is in a weak financial condition,
which is likely to worsen.
3. The proposed affiliation would also lead to an increase in the size of the Hartford HealthCare system. The
affiliation would increase the number of beds in the Hartford HealthCare system by 7.3%. Total hospital
discharges would increase by 13.9%, and NPSR would increase by 5.1%. It is also important to note where this
growth is occurring. This proposed affiliation would extend Hartford HealthCare’s footprint further to the west,
giving it broad east to west coverage across the mid to upper portion of the state. See Table 8.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
37
Table 8: Impact Analysis of the Proposed Affiliation on Hartford Health System Data (2015) Charlotte
Hungerford Hartford HealthCare Combined: Hartford Health
System with Charlotte Hungerford
Increase for Hartford HealthCare
Beds 122 1,679 1,801 7.3%
Hospital Discharges 6,030 43,350 49,380 13.9%
NPSR $113,736,000 $2,239,380,000 $2,353,116,000 5.1%
Source: Based upon an analysis of data and information collected by CT DPH, Office of Healthcare Access.
4. The proposed affiliation could lead to an increase in Charlotte Hungerford’s prices overtime. Charlotte
Hungerford has a NPSR problem today; NPSR has been declining overtime, a likely result of several factors that
drive revenue including price, utilization, provider mix (types of providers), and service mix (types of services).
Provider consolidations or alignments can affect all such factors including prices.13 Post affiliation, Charlotte
Hungerford may be able to secure price increases from commercial payers.
B. Access and Availability of Services
In this section, an examination of the parties’ baseline performance is provided on the availability and access to services
prior to the affiliation, and a projection of what is likely to happen post affiliation. With respect to future CMIRs, see also
Box 3: Considerations for Expanding Data Focus on Access in Future CMIRs.
KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE:
1. Availability and access
Charlotte Hungerford provides a substantial amount of care to Medicare-covered individuals including adults with
disabilities and seniors. The data also indicates that Charlotte Hungerford’s emergency department is busier than
most with a large population with behavioral health conditions, perhaps compensating for the lack of these types of
services in the community. It is hard to say this definitively without further analysis of the behavioral health needs of
the communities served by Charlotte Hungerford.
2. Methods to attract volume or recruit professionals
Charlotte Hungerford has faced significant troubles in recruitment of medical professionals, citing many challenges
akin to the situation that all community hospitals face. Post affiliation, Hartford HealthCare and Charlotte
Hungerford will work together to conduct a physician needs recruitment assessment to improve overall recruitment
at the community hospital. Charlotte Hungerford hopes to benefit in recruitment from leveraging Hartford
HealthCare’s solid infrastructure for recruitment of medical professionals. There is evidence that Hartford
HealthCare will improve the recruitment of medical professionals for Charlotte Hungerford.14
13 See JAMA, December 2015. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2463591. See Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/health-care-market-consolidations-impacts-on-costs-quality-and-access/. See also Massachusetts HPC. http://www.mass.gov/anf/docs/hpc/hpc-preliminary-review-of-phs-ssh-harbor-12-18-2013.pdf. 14 Community Hospitals at a Crossroads: Findings from an Examination of the Massachusetts Health Care System, March 2016. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Health Policy Commission. See http://www.mass.gov/anf/budget-taxes-and-procurement/oversight-agencies/health-policy-commission/publications/community-hospitals-at-a-crossroads.pdf.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
38
3. Role of each party in serving at-risk underserved populations
Charlotte Hungerford is an important provider of hospital care to Medicaid populations including mothers, infants,
children and adolescents, as well as those who are uninsured and who are seniors.
4. Role of each party in providing low-margin and negative-margin services
Charlotte Hungerford plays a significant role in providing services to individuals covered under Medicaid and to
uninsured populations.
B.1. Baseline Performance
Several measures were examined and analyzed to establish the baseline for Charlotte Hungerford and for Hartford and
their comparators.
Availability and Access
An examination was conducted of the availability and accessibility of services provided by each transacting party, or
proposed to be provided under this affiliation in the community at large.
Charlotte Hungerford is an important provider of services to the community, providing a substantial amount of care to
populations covered under Medicare. This means that Charlotte Hungerford is an important provider to adults with
disabilities and seniors. Charlotte Hungerford’s payer mix reveals that about 56% of its discharges were covered under
Medicare, which is 13 percentage points higher than the state average. See Figure 13: Payer Mix for Hospital Discharges
for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare, 2015. Charlotte Hungerford’s share of discharges for Medicare-
covered populations is also higher than all if its comparators except for Sharon hospital. See Figure 14: Payer Mix for
Hospital Discharges for Charlotte Hungerford and its Comparators, 2015.
Box 3. Considerations for Expanding Data Focus on Access in Future CMIRs
Access is a broad topic with many definitions and a critical one for Connecticut individuals who currently rely upon
the services at Charlotte Hungerford and its comparator hospitals. In this report, the focus was on the following
metrics of access as outlined in Section 639f, including (1) availability and accessibility of services “similar" to those
provided by each transacting party, or proposed to be provided – a result of ownership of a hospital within each
transacting party’s primary service areas and dispersed service areas; (2) the role of each party in serving at-risk
underserved populations; and (3) the role of each party in providing services with low and negative margins. Future
CMIRs may define access more broadly, as more comprehensive data is provided and in response to the important
concerns of each proposed affiliation and the evolution of the Connecticut marketplace around consolidations.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
39
Figure 13: Payer Mix by Hospital Discharge
Source: Based upon an analysis of CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access data.
Figure 14: Payer Mix by Hospital Discharge; Charlotte Hungerford
Source: . Based upon an analysis of CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access data
23.7% 30.0% 31.8%
55.8% 44.6% 42.7%
19.9% 24.6% 24.6%
0.6% 0.9% 0.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Charlotte Hungerford Hartford HealthCare State
Payer Mix for Hospital Discharges for Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare, 2015
Non Gov't Medicare Medicaid All other
26.2% 23.7% 29.2% 31.8% 25.9% 24.9%
57.2% 55.8% 48.7% 42.7%47.8% 46.4%
8.9% 19.9% 21.9% 24.6% 26.0% 28.5%
7.7%0.6% 0.1% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sharon CharlotteHungerford
Griffin Statewide Bristol Waterbury
Payer Mix for Hospital Discharges for Charlotte Hungerford and its Comparators, 2015
Non Gov't Medicare Medicaid All other
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
40
Charlotte Hungerford is also an important provider of outpatient services to the Medicaid populations, with 63% of its
total revenue coming from Medicaid-covered outpatient services. See Table 10: The Role in Providing Outpatient Care to
Medicaid Populations by Transacting Parties and Their Comparators, CY 2014. A review of the Medicaid data for
Charlotte Hungerford and its comparators indicates that revenue from outpatient services represents a much higher
share of its total revenue for Charlotte Hungerford than for its comparators. Revenue from Medicaid for Charlotte
Hungerford represented 63% of its total Medicaid revenue, as compared to 25% of total revenue for its comparators.
See Table 10.
Also of note, Charlotte Hungerford receives a high volume of outpatient visits from populations with behavioral health
needs in the emergency department. Nearly 47% of emergency department visits are for, or related to, a behavioral
health condition. See Table 10.
Methods to Attract Volume or Recruit Professionals
At the CON hearing on May 8, 2017, officials from Charlotte Hungerford testified about the financial difficulties that it
has faced due to staffing losses and challenges in physician recruitment. Not only has Charlotte Hungerford experienced
a reduction of 46 medical staff including extender staff since 2013 due to retirements and resignations but it also has
faced great difficulties in recruitment of physicians. Given declining revenues for inpatient care, Charlotte Hungerford
sought to expand its revenue base in the community, with efforts focused on recruiting primary care and specialist
physicians. These efforts have not yielded the desired results. As Charlotte Hungerford testified, difficulties in
recruitment have “greatly hampered” Charlotte Hungerford’s ability to “improve access and revenues by developing
relevant service lines in response to community needs.”15
Charlotte Hungerford sees their difficulties in recruitment very much related to the challenges that many community
hospitals face including (1) the presence of a multi-disciplinary collaborative colleagues; (2) special laboratories and
research opportunities; (3) academic appointments; (4) coverage (off-shift operations, nights, weekends, for the kind of
critical care support systems that it needs, the depth and breadth of those systems to make sure that patients are
appropriately cared for in a way that it would like to care for them); and (5) a deep reservoir of medical technology or
information technology.
Role of Each Party in Serving At-Risk Underserved Populations
Charlotte Hungerford provides services to over 1,000 unique individuals covered under Medicaid including any who are
under the age of 19. Nearly 25% of the patient population is under the age of 19. See Table 9: The Role in Providing
Inpatient Care to Medicaid Populations by Transacting Parties and Their Comparators, CY 2014.
Obstetrical admissions are also a big part of the business at Charlotte Hungerford. Deliveries comprise 18% of all
admissions at Charlotte Hungerford.
15 Transcript of CON Hearing. State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, Office of Health Care Access, Hartford HealthCare
Corporation and The Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, Transfer Ownership of The Charlotte Hungerford Hospital to Hartford HealthCare Corporation, Docket No. 16-32135-CON, May 8, 2017, 4:00 P.M. Torrington Town Post Reporting Service. Hamden, CT.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
41
Table 9: The Role in Providing Inpatient Care to Medicaid Populations by Transacting Parties and Their Comparators, CY 2014
Charlotte Hungerford
Comparators without Charlotte Hungerford
Hartford HealthCare
Y-NHHS All CT Hospitals
Unique Patients
Unique Patients 1,004 5,333 15,746 29,697 72,924
Age Breakdown
Infants/Children/Teens <19 years of age
256 1,432 4,238 * 23,912
Adults: 19-64 743 3,833 11,090 * 47,270
Seniors: 65 and older 6 75 426 * 1,817
All ages 1,005 5,340 15,754 * 72,999
Services
All Admissions 1,237 6,509 19,281 31,398 97,758
Infants/Children/Teens <19 years of age
261 1,446 4,461 13,145 27,718
<19 years of age % of All 21% 22% 23% 42% 28%
Obstetric Admissions 225 1,319 1,759 4,965 16,816
OB as a % of All 18% 20% 9% 16% 17%
Case Mix Index (Medicaid) 0.9574 0.9413 1.1536 1.2113 1.1621
Medicaid Payments
Inpatient $6,464,097 $34,773,334 $127,303,261 $234,219,793 $732,745,063
Outpatient $11,037,563 $11,505,583 $133,855,078 $133,855,078 $133,855,078
Total $17,501,660 $46,278,917 $261,158,339 $368,074,871 $866,600,141
Medicaid Payments for Inpatient as a % of Total
37% 75% 49% 64% 85%
Note: Data not available (*). Source: CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access, based upon an analysis of DSS Medicaid data.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
42
Table 10: The Role in Providing Outpatient Care to Medicaid Populations by Transacting Parties and Its Comparators, CY 2014
Data (In State only) Charlotte Hungerford
Comparators without Charlotte Hungerford
Hartford HealthCare
Y-NHHS All CT Hospitals
All Outpatient Visits, including PH and BH
ED Visits 14,818 52,891 164,309 153,524 668,517
Non-ED Visits 31,050 72,466 210,303 336,142 1,151,042
All OP Visits (PH & BH) 45,868 125,357 374,612 489,666 1,819,559
ED as a % of All 32% 42% 44% 31% 37%
Behavioral Health OP Visits
BH ED 6,971 7,929 34,943 41,595 191,779
BH Non-ED 6,285 15,068 14,050 18,664 105,388
All BH Visits 13,256 22,997 48,993 60,259 297,167
Total BH OP % of All OP Visits
29% 18% 13% 12% 16%
BH ED Visits as a % of All BH Visits
53% 34% 71% 69% 65%
BH ED Visits as a % of All ED Visits
47% 15% 21% 27% 29%
Medicaid Payments
Outpatient $11,037,563 $11,505,583 $133,855,078 $200,698,848 $669,858,461
Inpatient $6,464,097 $34,773,334 $127,303,261 $127,303,261 $732,745,063
Total Medicaid Payments $17,501,660 $46,278,917 $261,158,339 $328,002,109 $1,402,603,524
Medicaid Payments for OP as a % of Total
63% 25% 51% 61% 48%
Source: CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access, based upon an analysis of DSS Medicaid data.
Role in Providing Low-Margin and Negative Margin
Charlotte Hungerford plays a significant role in providing services to individuals covered under Medicaid and to
uninsured populations. In 2015, populations covered under Medicaid and those who were uninsured represented 22%
of Charlotte Hungerford’s total discharges, as compared to 25.5% of Hartford HealthCare’s total discharges. See Table
11: Discharges at the Hospital of the Transacting Parties.
Table 11: Discharges at the Hospitals of the Transacting Parties
Discharges (2015) % of All Discharges
Hospital or System Medicaid Uninsured All Medicaid Uninsured Total
Charlotte Hungerford 1,200 102 6,030 19.9% 1.7% 21.6%
Hartford 20,010 739 81,492 24.6% 0.91% 25.5%
Statewide 98,750 5,392 401,471 24.6% 1.34% 25.9%
Source: Based upon an analysis of data and information collected by CT DPH, Office of Health Care Access.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
43
B.2. Impact Analysis
Section 639f raises several questions relevant to how the proposed affiliation will affect access and availability of
services in Connecticut, with an interest to the specific impact on:
1. the availability and accessibility of services;
2. patient volume and recruitment of health care professionals or facilities;
3. services for at-risk, underserved populations and government payer-patient populations, including those with
behavioral, substance use disorder and mental health conditions; and
4. services with low negative margins within each transacting parties’ primary service area.
KEY FINDINGS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED AFFILIATION ON ACCESS AND MARKET:
1. Access
The proposed affiliation would preserve access to Charlotte Hungerford for: Medicaid populations including
populations under the age of 19 and for deliveries, adults with disabilities and seniors covered under Medicare, and
for services with margins that are low or negative.
2. Accessibility of services
The proposed affiliation has the potential to improve the community’s ability to address several needs including
many needs identified in the Community Health Needs Assessment.
The next section details the commitments that Hartford HealthCare has made to the Charlotte Hungerford and the
northwest region including: improving the primary care and ambulatory care network, expanding Hartford
HealthCare’s ambulatory care to children and adolescents, enhancing cardiac care at Charlotte Hungerford, and
implementing gastrointestinal and digestive diseases and orthopedic programs.
Overall, these new investments, coupled with many other investments promised under the proposed affiliation,
hold promise for improving access and the availability of services for all populations, including children, adolescents,
adults, and seniors.
3. Recruitment of health care professionals
The proposed affiliation has the potential to improve Charlotte Hungerford’s ability to address several barriers to
successful recruitment of medical professionals. Hartford HealthCare has a solid infrastructure for recruitment today
that can be leveraged to support Charlotte Hungerford, which has already been used to help Charlotte Hungerford
in recruiting a surgeon. Post affiliation, Hartford HealthCare and Charlotte Hungerford will work together to conduct
a physician needs recruitment assessment to improve overall recruitment at the community hospital.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
44
C. Quality of Care Performance and Care Delivery
In this section, an examination is provided of the parties’ baseline performance on quality and care delivery prior to the
affiliation, as we well as a projection of what is likely to happen post affiliation.
The following factors of the analysis are addressed including hospital quality of care performance, patient experience
and the impact of the affiliation on competing options for the delivery of health care services.
KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE:
1. Quality of care
Overall, there is room for improvement on quality and safety performance for both hospitals, with Charlotte
Hungerford results showing many areas for improvement. Leapfrog Hospital survey results for Charlotte Hungerford
find the hospital achieved 88% of the target for medication safety measures and 63% of the target for maternity
care and infection and injury composite measures. On the Leapfrog Safety Grade, Charlotte Hungerford scored a C/D
average over the 7 performance periods, compared to grades ranging between A/B and B/C for comparator
hospitals. Using the CMS Hospital Compare overall rating, Charlotte Hungerford scored 2 stars, while its comparator
hospitals are either 2 or 3 stars. Hartford Hospital’s overall rating is also 2 stars, with its comparator hospital, YNHH,
scoring 3 stars overall.
2. Patient experience
Using the Hospital CAHPS survey, Charlotte Hungerford’s performance was lower than the statewide average for 9
out of 11 measures, suggesting many opportunities to improve patient experience. Hartford’s performance was
lower than the statewide average for 9 out of 11 measures, which are very like the results for Charlotte Hungerford,
while Hartford’s comparator Yale New Haven had slightly higher patient experience scores than Hartford that
allowed them to perform at or above the statewide average on 8 out of 11 measures.
3. Competing care delivery options
The Charlotte Hungerford Community Health Needs Assessment identifies significant unmet needs in Charlotte
Hungerford’s primary service area (Litchfield County), including primary care and behavioral health access needs.16
Specific data sources used to assess baseline performance and consider potential impacts from the affiliation are
discussed further below, followed by an analysis of baseline performance and a discussion of the potential impact.
C.1. Baseline Performance
Quality of Care and Patient Experience
To assess the transacting parties’ performance on Quality of Care, HMA reviewed several independent, publicly available
data sources and selected for baseline analysis the Leapfrog Hospital Survey, the Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade, and
hospital comparison data published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). They reflect a
combination of process and health outcome measures as well as measures of patient safety. Patient safety has
16 TCHH Community Health Assessment (2016-2019) and Community Health Improvement Plan, and Community Health Needs Assessment (2015 Update) provided in the Certificate of Need application.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
45
increasingly been accepted as an integral element of quality and focuses on systems of care delivery that prevent errors,
learn from errors that are not prevented, and promote a “culture of safety” engaging all hospital staff, including
healthcare professionals, and patients.
Leapfrog Hospital Survey Results for Charlotte Hungerford and Comparator
The Leapfrog Hospital Survey17 annually assesses hospital quality, safety, and efficiency using national performance
measures. The survey is for general acute and freestanding pediatric hospitals across the United States who voluntarily
participate. The measures are selected with input from scientific advisors at the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety
and volunteer expert panels. Information submitted by hospitals undergoes a data review and on-site data verification
process.
Table 12: Leapfrog Hospital Survey Composite Results, 2016 for Charlotte Hungerford and Bristol Hospitals provides the
results of Charlotte Hungerford compared to one of its comparator hospitals, Bristol Hospital (Bristol) using the Leapfrog
Hospital Survey from 2016. Bristol was the only comparator hospital identified for this review who voluntarily chose to
participate in the Leapfrog Hospital Survey in 2016 along with Charlotte Hungerford.
The results of the survey are sorted into the following six groups: Inpatient Care Management, Medication Safety,
Maternity Care, High-Risk Surgeries, and Infections and Injuries. Each group is comprised of 2 to 7 different measures.
Each measure is scored on a four-tiered scale, from highest to lowest, depending on the hospital Fully Meeting the
Standard (4), Making Substantial Progress (3), Some Progress (2), or Willing to Report (1). The High-risk Surgery
composite is not reported for Charlotte Hungerford or Bristol due to not performing high-risk surgeries. Composites with
scores less than 90% of the Leapfrog’s target for Charlotte Hungerford include Medication Safety, Maternity Care and
Infection and Injury performance.
Table 12: Leapfrog Hospital Survey Composite Results, 2016 for Charlotte Hungerford and Bristol Hospitals Composite Domain
Leapfrog Composite Description Target Charlotte Hungerford
Bristol
# # % # %
Inpatient Care Management
To provide the safest, highest-quality care, hospitals must staff their units with appropriate expertise and have effective policies in place to manage and reduce errors. The biggest impact on patient outcomes comes from a deliberate and hospital-wide commitment to these practices.
20 18 90% 12 60%
Medication Safety Medication errors are the most common mistakes in hospitals, contributing to an estimated 7,000 deaths annually. Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and bar code medication administration (BCMA) are proven ways of significantly reducing medication errors when a medication is prescribed and given to patients.
8 7 88% 8 100%
Maternity Care Having a baby is one of life’s most exciting experiences, and with nine months to plan, families can take the time they need to choose the best hospital for delivery. It's important to pay attention to a hospital's rate of C-sections, early elective deliveries, and episiotomy, as well as performance on
16 10 63% 14 88%
17 Leapfrog Hospital Survey results can be accessed at http://www.leapfroggroup.org/compare-hospitals.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
46
Composite Domain
Leapfrog Composite Description Target Charlotte Hungerford
Bristol
# # % # %
standard processes of care and delivery outcomes in high-risk situations.
High-Risk Surgeries
For many high-risk surgeries, choosing where to receive care can mean the difference between life and death. Patients who need certain complex procedures should choose facilities with high survival rates and consult their surgeon about how many procedures he or she has done to ensure they receive the best care possible.
0 0 n/a 0 n/a
Infections and Injuries
Hospital-acquired infections and injuries are complications that were not present when a patient was admitted, but developed due to errors or accidents in the hospital. These conditions are entirely preventable, and some hospitals have made huge strides in getting to zero infections and injuries.
16 10 63% 15 94%
TOTAL 60 45 75% 49 82%
Source: Leapfrog Hospital Survey, 2016
A more detailed analysis of the composites with results less than 90% of the target for Charlotte Hungerford is in Table
13: Leapfrog Hospital Survey Measure Results, 2016 for Charlotte Hungerford and Bristol Hospitals; Maternity Care,
which identify more targeted opportunities for improvement.
Table 13: Leapfrog Hospital Survey Results, 2016 for Charlotte Hungerford and Bristol Hospitals; Maternity Care Maternity Care Leapfrog Measure Rationale Target Charlotte
Hungerford Bristol
Early Elective Deliveries Both moms and babies are at risk when deliveries are scheduled too early.
4 4 4
Cesarean Sections Hospitals with lower rates of Cesareans tend to manage labor better.
4 1 4
Episiotomies Once routine, episiotomies cause more harm than good.
4 1 2
Maternity Care Processes Measures screening for newborns for jaundice prior to discharge and use of techniques to prevent blood clots for women with Cesareans.
4 4 4
High-Risk Deliveries Babies are managed better in experienced Neonatal ICUs
4 Does Not Apply*
Does Not Apply
Total 20 10 (out of 16)
14 (out of 16)
*Does Not Apply Score is used by Leapfrog when a hospital does not perform the procedure or service.
Source: Leapfrog Hospital Survey, 2016
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
47
Table 14: Leapfrog Hospital Survey Results, 2016 for Charlotte Hungerford and Bristol Hospitals; Medication Safety Medication Safety Leapfrog Measure Rationale Target Charlotte
Hungerford Bristol
Doctors order medications through a computer
Electronic prescribing systems alert staff to potentially dangerous medication errors
4 4 4
Safe Medication Administration Special barcoding technology can significantly cut down on errors
4 3 4
Total 8 7 8
Source: Leapfrog Hospital Survey, 2016
Table 15: Leapfrog Hospital Survey Results, 2016 for Charlotte Hungerford and Bristol Hospitals; Infections and Injuries Infections and Injuries Leapfrog Measure Rationale Target Charlotte
Hungerford Bristol
Central-Line Infections in Intensive Care Units (ICUs)
Potentially deadly infections can be avoided with proper protocol
4 2 4
Urinary Catheter Infections in ICUs
When not inserted and removed correctly, can cause serious infections
4 4 4
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) Infections
Without proper protocols, patients can be infected with dangerous strains of bacteria 4
Unable to Calculate*
2
C. difficile Infections Without proper protocols, patients can be infected with dangerous strains of bacteria
4 1 3
Surgical Site Infection Following Major Colon Surgery
Using appropriate antibiotics and closely monitoring patients reduces risk
4 3 4
Total
20 10
(out of 16) 15
* Leapfrog reports “Unable to Calculate Score” when patient volume for the measure is too low to accurately calculate a score.
Source: Leapfrog Hospital Survey, 2016
Hartford HealthCare and its affiliated hospitals did not participate in the Leapfrog Hospital Survey. Therefore,
information about the performance of Hartford relative to its comparators or to Charlotte Hungerford is not available
for this review.
Leapfrog Safety Grade Performance
Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grades18 are measured for general acute-care hospitals across the United States two times per
year. The Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade uses 30 national performance measures from multiple sources to develop a
composite score for each hospital that is represented as a single letter grade reflecting overall performance on
preventable patient safety, including prevention of errors, injuries and infections. Measures include both (1)
Process/Structural Measures or (2) Outcome Measures, each accounting for 50% of the overall score. The measure
sources include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Leapfrog Hospital Survey, the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American
Hospital Association’s Annual Survey and Health Information Technology Supplement. The methodology is peer
reviewed.
For this review, HMA analyzed 7 review periods, from Spring 2014 – Spring 2017, and calculated average performance
across the periods by translating the safety grade into a numeric score (Grade A = 4; B = 3; C = 2; D = 1; F = 0). Scores are
available for Charlotte Hungerford and its comparator hospitals, Bristol Hospital, Griffin Hospital, Sharon Hospital and
18 Leapfrog Safety Grade information can be accessed at http://www.hospitalsafetygrade.org/.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
48
Waterbury Hospital and are provided in Table 16: Leapfrog Safety Grade Results, 2014 – 2017 for Charlotte Hungerford
Hospital and Comparators. Scores show that Charlotte Hungerford scored a C/D average (1.3 out of 4) over the 7
performance periods, which was lower than its comparators ranging from A/B to B/C (3.9 to 2.3).
Table 16: Leapfrog Safety Grade Results, 2014 – 2017 for Charlotte Hungerford Hospital and Comparators
Period
Charlotte Hungerford
Bristol Griffin Sharon Waterbury
Grade # Grade # Grade # Grade # Grade #
Spring 2017 C 2 C 2 A 4 A 4 C 2
Fall 2016 B 3 B 3 A 4 NS* NS C 2
Spring 2016 D 1 B 3 A 4 NS NS C 2
Fall 2015 C 2 B 3 A 4 NS NS C 2
Spring 2015 C 2 C 2 A 4 NS NS C 2
Fall 2014 D 1 D 1 A 4 NS NS C 2
Spring 2014 D 1 C 2 B 3 NS NS C 2
Total 12 16 27 4 14
Average C/D 1.7 B/C 2.3 A/B 3.9 A/B 3.7
Source: Leapfrog Safety Grade, 2014-2017
HMA calculated a “System Level” Leapfrog Safety Grade based on the grades over 7 performance periods during 2014
through 2017 for each of the hospitals comprising Hartford HealthCare Corporation and its comparator hospital systems,
Yale New Haven and Western Connecticut Health Network. The performance of Hartford Healthcare system relative to
its comparators shows grades higher than its comparator hospital systems (average 2.4 grade for Hartford HealthCare
compared to 2.0 for Yale New Haven and Western Connecticut systems). In addition, the Hartford HealthCare system
has a higher grade than Charlotte Hungerford (average of 2.4 or Grade B/C for the system compared to 1.7 or Grade C/D
for Charlotte Hungerford). Table 17: Leapfrog Safety Grade System Level Results, 2014 – 2017 for Hartford HealthCare
and Comparators shows the system level Leapfrog Safety Grades for Hartford HealthCare Corporation and its
comparators.
Table 17: Leapfrog Safety Grade System Level Results, 2014 – 2017 for Hartford HealthCare and Comparators
Period Hartford HealthCare Yale New Haven Western Connecticut
Spring 2017 2.2 1.6 2.0
Fall 2016 2.2 2 1.5
Spring 2016 2.6 2.25 1.5
Fall 2015 2 1.75 2.0
Spring 2015 2.6 2.25 2.0
Fall 2014 2.6 2.25 2.3
Spring 2014 2.4 2 2.3
Average 2.4 2.0 2.0
Overall Grade B/C C C
Source: Leapfrog Safety Grade, 2014-2017
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
49
CMS Hospital Compare
The CMS Hospital Compare19 includes an overall hospital quality rating summarizing up to 57 quality measures for
commonly treated conditions, such as heart attacks or pneumonia. The ratings provide a comparison of each hospital’s
performance, on average, compared to other U.S. hospitals, with over 4,000 Medicare-certified hospitals included. The
ratings range from one to five stars, with more stars representing better performance.
Some of the measures used to calculate the overall rating are based only on data from Medicare patients, while others
are based on data from all patients. For example, claims-based measures are based on Medicare fee-for-service (FFS)
hospital claims data only, while process of care, healthcare-associated infection (HAI), and HCAHPS Survey measures
include data for all patients served at each participating hospital.
Table 18: Hospital Ratings Based on CMS Hospital Compare 5-Star System provides overall ratings using the most
currently available data on CMS Hospital Compare20 for Charlotte Hungerford compared to its comparators and the
Connecticut and national averages. The table also provides results for Hartford Hospital and its comparator hospital,
Yale New Haven. The overall rating for Charlotte Hungerford is 2 stars, while its comparator hospitals are either 2 or 3
stars. Hartford Hospital’s overall rating is also 2 stars, with Yale New Haven Hospital scoring 3 stars overall.
Table 18: Hospital Ratings Based on CMS Hospital Compare 5-Star System
Hospital Compare Overall Rating Target
Charlotte Hungerford Bristol Griffin Sharon
Water-bury
Hartford Hospital
Yale New Haven
Hospital
Overall Rating 5 stars 2 stars 3 stars 2 stars 3 stars 2 stars 2 stars 3 stars
Source: CMS Hospital Compare
Patient Experience
Another important measure of quality is patient experience of their hospital care. The CMS Hospital Consumer
Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) is a publicly available measure of hospital patient experience
of care across 11 topics. CMS and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), developed the HCAHPS
Survey, also known as Hospital CAHPS®, to provide a standardized survey instrument and data collection methodology
for measuring patients' perspectives on hospital care. All short-term, acute care, non-specialty hospitals are invited to
participate, with over 4,000 hospitals participating. Hospital-level results are publicly reported quarterly on the CMS
Hospital Compare website, using the last available four quarters of data. The HCAHPS data are collected through a post-
discharge survey of a random set of adult hospital patients between 48 hours and 6 weeks after discharge, including
Medicare beneficiaries and other non-Medicare patients.
Charlotte Hungerford’s performance was lower than the statewide average for 9 out of 11 measures, suggesting many
opportunities to improve patient experience (see Table 19: Patient Experience Performance from CMS HCAHPS –
Charlotte Hungerford and Comparators). There were only 2 out of 11 measures with performance higher than the state
average performance. For the measure on whether the patients received help as soon as they wanted, Charlotte
Hartford was still below most of its comparators for the measure. On the measure where 90% of Charlotte Hungerford’s
19 The CMS Hospital Compare website provides hospital comparison data as well as detailed information about the methodology used by CMS to collect and calculate the measures. The website can be accessed at https://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/search.html. 20 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Hospital Compare. Web. 2 June 2017.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
50
patients reported that they were given information about what to do during their recovery at home, Charlotte
Hungerford had comparable performance to some of its comparators and better results for others.
Table 19: Patient Experience Performance from CMS HCAHPS – Charlotte Hungerford and Comparators
Patient Experience of Care Measure National CT
Average Charlotte
Hungerford Bristol Griffin Sharon Waterbury
Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well
80% 80% 77% 85% 81% 82% 77%
Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" communicated well
82% 80% 73% 82% 81% 84% 77%
Patients who reported that they "Always" received help as soon as they wanted
69% 65% 66% 73% 69% 74% 57%
Patients who reported that their pain was "Always" well controlled*
71% 71% 67% 74% 70% 71% 68%
Patients who reported that staff "Always" explained about medicines before giving it to them
65% 61% 53% 67% 68% 62% 56%
Patients who reported that their room and bathroom were "Always" clean
74% 74% 73% 75% 79% 82% 66%
Patients who reported that the area around their room was "Always" quiet at night
63% 52% 40% 56% 59% 59% 50%
Patients who reported that YES, they were given information about what to do during their recovery at home
87% 87% 90% 90% 90% 85% 87%
Patients who "Strongly Agree" they understood their care when they left the hospital
52% 51% 48% 55% 52% 51% 43%
Patients who gave their hospital a rating of 9 or 10 on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest)
72% 69% 60% 72% 77% 75% 64%
Patients who reported YES, they would definitely recommend the hospital
72% 71% 61% 73% 78% 71% 66%
* Note: CMS reports that the pain management questions on the HCAHPS Survey are under review for possible revision. Source: CMS Hospital Compare, HCAHPS
Table 20: Patient Experience Performance from CMS HCAHPS – Hartford and Yale New Haven Hospitals provides patient
experience results for Hartford Hospital compared to Yale New Haven hospital and other benchmarks. Hartford’s
performance was lower than the statewide average for 9 out of 11 measures; this is nearly the same as the results for
Charlotte Hungerford. Yale New Haven had slightly higher patient experience scores than Hartford that allowed them to
perform at or above the statewide average on 8 out of 11 measures.
Table 20: Patient Experience Performance from CMS HCAHPS – Hartford and Yale New Haven Hospitals
Patient Experience of Care Measure National CT Average Hartford Yale New
Haven Charlotte
Hungerford
Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well
80% 80% 78% 81% 77%
Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" communicated well
82% 80% 79% 80% 73%
Patients who reported that they "Always" received help as soon as they wanted
69% 65% 58% 64% 66%
Patients who reported that their pain was "Always" well controlled*
71% 71% 69% 70% 67%
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
51
Patient Experience of Care Measure National CT Average Hartford Yale New
Haven Charlotte
Hungerford
Patients who reported that staff "Always" explained about medicines before giving it to them
65% 61% 61% 62% 53%
Patients who reported that their room and bathroom were "Always" clean
74% 74% 68% 65% 73%
Patients who reported that the area around their room was "Always" quiet at night
63% 52% 48% 52% 40%
Patients who reported that YES, they were given information about what to do during their recovery at home
87% 87% 89% 88% 90%
Patients who "Strongly Agree" they understood their care when they left the hospital
52% 51% 50% 53% 48%
Patients who gave their hospital a rating of 9 or 10 on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest)
72% 69% 66% 72% 60%
Patients who reported YES, they would definitely recommend the hospital
72% 71% 72% 77% 61%
* Note: CMS reports that the pain management questions on the HCAHPS Survey are under review for possible revision.
Source: CMS Hospital Compare, HCAHPS
Care Delivery
Baseline measures of the care delivery system, especially at Charlotte Hungerford, reflect services consistent with a full-
service community hospital and are described in Section II of this report.
Key characteristics of the baseline care delivery context that may factor into the impact analysis include the following
based on information from the CON application, including the Charlotte Hungerford Community Needs Assessment
(CHNA) submitted as part of the application:
1. Charlotte Hungerford is a community hospital serving mostly low-income populations who reside in the
communities surrounding the hospital.21
2. Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare have a longstanding clinical relationship, resulting in most of
Charlotte’s emergency department and other hospital transfers being referred to Hartford HealthCare.
3. The Charlotte Hungerford CHNA identifies significant unmet needs in Charlotte Hungerford’s primary service
area (Litchfield County), including primary care and behavioral health access needs.
4. Litchfield is a federally designated health professional shortage area, with Torrington being specifically
designated as a primary care health professional shortage area.
5. There are three acute care hospitals in Litchfield County, including Charlotte Hungerford (in Torrington), New
Milford Campus of Danbury Hospital (in New Milford), and Sharon Hospital (in Sharon). There is also one
federally qualified health center, the Community Health and Wellness Center of Greater Torrington, which
provides preventive, primary and specialty services.
C.2. Impact Analysis
21 In the CON application, the parties indicate Charlotte Hungerford’s Service Area as Barkhamsted, Colebrook, Goshen, Harwinton, New Hartford, Norfolk, Litchfield, Morris, Thomaston, Torrington, Winchester, accounting for 91% of inpatient utilization.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
52
Quality of Care and Patient Experience Impact Analysis
As indicated in the results above, Charlotte Hungerford’s performance was below targets on multiple quality measures,
including patient safety performance. Although Hartford HealthCare has results that are stronger than the results for
Charlotte Hungerford, Hartford HealthCare still has room for improvement, especially in certain patient safety measures
and patient experience performance.
As part of the transacting parties’ CON application and related addenda, the parties highlight quality organizational
structures and processes that exist within Hartford HealthCare’s system that could potentially benefit Charlotte
Hungerford’s performance, including centralized quality accountability and structure that engages Hartford HealthCare
affiliated hospitals in regional quality improvement activities to establish improvement targets and monitor
performance. Hartford HealthCare also participates in clinical registries to monitor and validate clinical performance,
such as the American College of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). Charlotte Hungerford would
join the Hartford HealthCare system’s NSQIP program and likely benefit from this membership. Both Hartford Hospital
and Backus Hospital have been nationally recognized for performance in the top 10th of participating hospitals, based
upon the CON application.
As to patient safety impact potential, Hartford HealthCare has instituted a broad-based staff training program to reduce
Serious Safety Events (SSEs). The CON application notes that over the past three years, the system has observed a 70%
reduction in the rate of SSEs, suggesting substantive progress on improving systems and spreading a culture of safety
throughout the system. It is possible that similar improvements could be achieved at Charlotte Hungerford, with
additional training and ongoing system support.
Implementation of a centralized approach to patient experience is used at Hartford HealthCare, and would be extended
to Charlotte Hungerford. Recognizing flat performance across the Hartford HealthCare system on HCAHPS, the system
plans to establish an “experience team” under the direction of a chief experience officer specifically focused on
improving patient experience across the system.
The Hartford HealthCare quality of care structures and initiatives have the potential to support improvements in quality
of care and patient experience at Charlotte Hungerford. It is likely that many of the areas where Charlotte needs
improvement will also be priorities of the initiatives planned. What may be a factor in ongoing improvement is the
onboarding process of the hospital into the structures as well as the level of commitment of the Board to quality
improvement.22 In addition, understanding the issues driving patient experience at Charlotte Hungerford will be critical
to improving care experiences. The CHNA for Charlotte Hungerford identified, through key informant interviews and
focus groups, that patients have many positive feelings about interactions with health care professionals, while also
having issues with developing provider trust due to language barriers (i.e., not enough Spanish speaking staff at
Charlotte Hungerford). A focus on local issues and strategies to address patient experience may be needed for
improvements to be made.
Care Delivery Impact Analysis
The affiliation proposes to have an important impact on care delivery in the Northwest Region of Connecticut, where
Charlotte Hungerford operates. Many of the new or expanded services will help meet the unmet needs identified in the
CHNA, including the need for improved primary care and behavioral health access, and improved cardiac care delivery.
22 This study finds that higher quality performing hospitals were more likely to have Board members who identified quality as a top priority and had some level of training and understanding of quality. Accessed May 16, 2016 at http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/1/182.full.pdf+html
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
53
The initiatives are specifically targeted to certain population needs, especially for the growing population of Litchfield
County residents 65 years of age or older, who are disproportionately represented in the County relative to the state
average, based on 2014 Connecticut Economic Resource Center town profile data.23 Table 21: Care Delivery Initiatives
Proposed by Transacting Parties and Cross-walk to Community Needs summarizes the care delivery aspects of the
transition, including the array of new or expanded services that Hartford HealthCare commits to support.
Table 21: Care Delivery Initiatives Proposed by Transacting Parties and Cross-walk to Community Needs
Care Delivery Initiatives Description
New Service/ Service Expansion
Identified Community Health Need
Priority24 Extensive primary care and ambulatory care network including:
• use of patient-centered medical homes; • development and expansion of services and programs offered to the greater
Winsted, Connecticut community, including the development of a new, modern multispecialty care center; and
• development of an ambulatory surgery network in the Northwest (NW) Region.
Yes Yes
Expansion of HHC’s ambulatory care to children and adolescents in NW Region Yes Yes Inclusion in HHC’s state-wide telehealth network Yes Enhancement of cardiac care at Charlotte Hungerford and for NW Region with local specialists Includes integrated congestive heart failure program and on-site electrophysiology
Yes Yes
Aging at home and palliative care program in NW Region. Coordinated with HHC’s statewide senior care leadership and programs
Yes
Implementation of a gastrointestinal and digestive diseases and orthopedic programs Yes Behavioral health network implementation Yes Yes Expansion of neurology and neurosciences service lines Yes Access to HHC’s personalized medicine program, including access to genetic diagnostic and treatment resources
Yes
Expanded participation in HHC’s Maternal and Fetal Medicine Program including local access to peri-natologists
Yes
Establishment of a Mobile Simulation Program to provide advanced training and education to NW Region practitioners, including training on rural medicine Part of HHC’s Center for Education
Yes
Creation of a Geriatric Medicine Institute Yes Maintenance of clinical relationship with Connecticut Children’s Medical Center for pediatric patients in need of complex care
No
Source: Certificate of Need Application, 16-32135.
In addition, the CON application speaks to the long-standing partnership between Charlotte Hungerford and the
federally qualified health center in Litchfield County, with plans to explore additional opportunities for collaboration in
the future. This relationship may help mitigate any potential impact that the affiliation could have on the health center.
Given the growth in the supply of the new and expanded services and improved resources to market services, there is
the potential for an impact on competitors, especially those in Litchfield County. It is also possible that improved access
to primary care could decrease preventable hospitalizations, which could impact the hospitals in the region. However,
23 In Litchfield County, 17% were 65 years of age and over compared with 15% for the state. Data accessed from Connecticut Economic Resource Center at http://profiles.ctdata.org/profiles/ 24 Reflects community health priorities for Charlotte Hungerford’s service area identified in the Community Health Improvement Plan in the Charlotte Hungerford Hospital Community Needs Assessment, 2016-2019, provided to DPH as part of this CMIR review and in the CON application.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
54
many of these new services are being established in the context of unmet need in the community articulated in the
CHNA, so there is a good possibility that there could be minimal impact on competitors, despite the expansion.
Increased demand for services from the aging population in the community may also counteract some of the potential
downside from the expansion by the affiliation.25
D. Consumer Concerns
For this domain, OHCA and HMA attempted to identify data sources that captured complaints or other allegations about
the transacting parties that provide evidence of engaging in unfair methods of competition or any unfair or deceptive
act or practices. No relevant data sources were identified and no specific consumer concerns were raised at the public
hearing held May 8, 2017 by OHCA about the affiliation with respect to these concerns.
However, one issue to note from a consumer perspective, which was raised from the perspective of the community at
the May 8, 2017 CON hearing, is how the new governance structure for Charlotte Hungerford will work as the
composition of the governing body changes. The proposed affiliation will include a change in governance structure. The
governing body of Charlotte Hungerford will remain in place, including the current 15 members of the Board along with
four new directors appointed by Hartford HealthCare. The Hartford HealthCare Board will include, for a three-year
transition period, two additional individuals serving on the Charlotte Hungerford Board directly prior to the closing of
the affiliation. This will be an issue that the state will want to monitor to ensure a smooth transition for all stakeholders
including consumers.
25 TCHH Community Health Assessment (2016-2019) and Community Health Improvement Plan, and Community Health Needs Assessment (2015 Update) provided in the Certificate of Need application.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
55
Conclusion In this report, an examination of the baseline performance of Charlotte Hungerford and Hartford HealthCare was
provided regarding costs and market, access, and quality and care delivery prior to the affiliation and a projection of
what is likely to happen post affiliation.
In this section, the requirements of Section 639f will be addressed with respect to indicating whether a transacting party
meets the following criteria (1) Currently has or, following the proposed transfer of operations of the hospital, is likely to
have a dominant market share for the services the transacting party provides; (2) (A) currently charges or, following the
proposed transfer of operations of the hospital, is likely to charge prices for services that are materially higher than the
median prices charged by all other health care providers for the same services in the same market, or (B) currently has
or, following the proposed transfer of operations of a hospital, is likely to have a health status adjusted total medical
expense that is materially higher than the median total medical expense for all other health care providers for the
same service in the same market. Table 22: Section 639f Requirements: Summary of Examination provides a brief
explanation of the evidence and facts from this examination with respect to the requirements.
Table 22: Section 639f Requirements: Summary of Examination Requirement Yes or No Explanation
Dominant Market Share (for services provided by transacting parties)
Yes Hartford HealthCare’s market share is 26% today. This affiliation would increase its market share by 1.3 percentage points to 27%.
Prices for services that are materially higher than the median prices charged by other providers (same services, same market)
No
Accounting for facts of the CMIR, the Connecticut marketplace, and evidence from the literature, the proposed affiliation is not likely to lead to prices for services that are materially higher than the median prices charged by all other health care providers for the same services in the same market.
Health-status adjusted TME that is materially higher than the median TME for all other providers (same service, same market)
No
Accounting for the facts of the CMIR, the Connecticut marketplace, and evidence from the literature, the proposed affiliation is not likely to lead to health-adjusted TME that is materially higher than the median prices for all other health care providers for the same service in the same market.
Section 639f Requirements: Discussion
Dominant Market Share
In this CMIR, an examination of market share was provided. Hartford HealthCare system is the 2nd largest health system
in Connecticut, with 1.4% of total beds and 1.3% of NPSR. The proposed affiliation would increase Hartford HealthCare
system modestly, increasing its share of NPSR to 27%, or by 1.3 percentage points. Simply put, this proposed affiliation
will have very little effect on Hartford HealthCare’s existing dominant market share. Figure 15: Market Share Impact of
Proposed Affiliation, by Net Patient Service Revenue illustrates the increase in dominant market share for Hartford
HealthCare system.
Figure 15: Market Share Impact of Proposed Affiliation, by Net Patient Service Revenue
Charlotte = 1.3% HHC = 25.7% Combined = 27%
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
56
Prices for Services
A comprehensive examination of prices for the transacting parties for commercial payers could not be provided in this
CMR because the data was not available to do so. Consequently, this report will not attempt to quantify the potential
impact of this affiliation on commercial insurance prices but it will offer a view on the direction in which prices may
head.
The evidence from several well-established sources indicates that it is realistic to expect that the proposed affiliation will
lead to an increase in negotiated prices for services delivered by Charlotte Hungerford physicians and for inpatient and
outpatient hospital services. Certain fundamental factors, however, point to a conclusion that the overall effect on
spending will not be very significant. That is because negotiated price increases are anticipated for Charlotte
Hungerford’s commercial business; it is far less likely for prices to increase for its Medicaid and Medicare business and
government business represents the large majority of Charlotte Hungerford’s revenue base.
Following an affiliation of this type, hospitals and health system are more likely to negotiate higher prices with
commercial payers. Price changes can happen for many reasons, including new physicians join higher-priced physician
groups, physician and hospital have increased bargaining leverage, facility fees are added when physician groups and
their ancillaries are acquired by a hospital system, and referral patterns (provider mix) change when physicians shift
utilization to their higher priced new system.
It is very likely that prices will increase for commercial business, driven by a shift in Charlotte Hungerford’s bargaining
power. However, it is important to emphasize that the magnitude of any such price change would be small. Charlotte
Hungerford’s revenue base is over 75% derived from government sources and less than 25% from commercial payers.
Consequently, any increase in prices at Charlotte Hungerford would be minimal given that government pricing is unlikely
to fluctuate and commercial business is a small share of their overall revenue.
Moreover, Charlotte Hungerford comprises only 1.3% of statewide NPSR. To the degree that there is a change in prices
at Charlotte Hungerford, less than 0.33% of statewide health care spending will be affected.26
The incremental price increase on commercial spending is unlikely to be as large as that found under mergers of large
systems in highly consolidated markets, and the price increase is not likely to be as large as that found in true monopoly
markets.27
With respect to Hartford HealthCare’s benefit in terms of insurer bargaining leverage from the addition of the new
hospital to its system, Charlotte Hungerford is very small, which makes it very unlikely that this would lead to much
benefit in terms of prices in the short run. In the longer run, however, Hartford HealthCare’s has the potential to grow in
this new geographic area of the state.
Health-Adjusted Total Medical Expenses
In this CMIR, an examination of total medical expenses, and health status adjusted TME, could not be provided.
As was previously discussed, provider consolidations or affiliations like this one can affect prices. In general, however,
TME are influenced by changes in four primary factors: price, utilization, provider mix (meaning greater utilization of
26 This calculation is based on multiplying Charlotte Hungerford’s current share of commercial revenue (25%) by Charlotte Hungerford’s current share of the overall Connecticut market (1.3%), all in terms of its NPSR. 27 Cooper, Z., Craig, S., Gaynor, M., Van Reenen, J., The Price Ain’t Right? Hospital Prices and Health Spending on the Privately Insured, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 21815 available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w21815
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
57
higher-cost providers), and service mix (meaning greater utilization of higher-cost services). Such changes might occur
resulting from added facility fees when physician groups and their ancillaries are acquired by a hospital system, changes
in referral patterns (provider mix) as Charlotte Hungerford physicians shift utilization to their higher priced new system.
It is unlikely that the referral patterns will change significantly, since most of Charlotte Hungerford’s transfers from
emergency departments and from inpatient acute beds to tertiary facilities already go to Hartford HealthCare. While
there is reason to expect changes in transfer patterns after the affiliation, those changes will affect the minority of
patients that are not already transferred to Hartford HealthCare.
Finally, with respect to the overall size and market share of Charlotte Hungerford, it is projected that it is very unlikely
that this proposed affiliation would increase TME beyond a very small percent, if at all.
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
58
Appendix Table 23: Key Financial Performance Measures for Charlotte Hungerford Hospital and its Comparators
Year Charlotte Hungerford (CH) Comparator Group with CH Comparator Group Without CH
Net Patient Service Revenue ($000)
FY 2012 113,188 704,088 590,900
FY 2013 116,678 704,783 588,105
FY 2014 114,622 724,146 609,524
FY 2015 113,736 715,124 601,388
Growth Rate
FY 2012-2013 3.1% 0.1% -0.5%
FY 2013-2014 -1.8% 2.7% 3.6%
FY 2014-2015 -0.8% -1.2% -1.3%
Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
0.2% 0.5% 0.6%
Operating Margin
FY 2012 0.1% -0.6% -0.8%
FY 2013 0.0% -0.5% -0.6%
FY 2014 0.1% -0.7% -0.9%
FY 2015 -1.2% -3.1% -3.5%
FY 2012-2015 -0.2% -1.2% -1.4%
Table 24: Key Financial Performance Measures for Hartford HealthCare Corporation and its Comparators Year Hartford HealthCare
Corporation Comparator Group with HHC Comparator Group Without
HHC
Net Patient Service Revenue ($000)
FY 2012 2,097,825 5,592,198 3,494,373
FY 2013 2,129,453 6,347,257 4,217,804
FY 2014 2,271,219 6,547,266 4,276,047
FY 2015 2,256,455 6,872,962 4,616,507
Growth Rate
FY 2012-2013 1.5% 13.5% 20.7%
FY 2013-2014 6.7% 3.2% 1.4%
FY 2014-2015 -0.7% 5.0% 8.0%
Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
2.5% 7.1% 9.7%
Operating Margin
FY 2012 3.7% 4.4% 5.0%
FY 2013 -0.6% 2.4% 4.0%
FY 2014 2.1% 3.7% 4.6%
FY 2015 1.3% 2.8% 3.6%
FY 2012-2015 1.6% 3.3% 4.2%
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
59
Table 25: Financial Performance Summary for Charlotte Hungerford Hospital and Its Comparator Hospitals (2012-2015)
Performance Measurement by Year
Charlotte Hungerford
Bristol Hospital and Health Care Group
Griffin Health Services
Sharon Hospital Holding Co.
Waterbury Hospital
Net Patient Service Revenue ($000)
FY 2012 113,188 152,617 123,980 56,155 258,148
FY 2013 116,678 155,469 129,041 60,249 243,346
FY 2014 114,622 168,232 140,783 56,110 244,399
FY 2015 113,736 166,109 151,666 54,952 228,661
Total Operating Revenue ($000)
FY 2012 118,923 159,688 147,409 58,491 269,542
FY 2013 124,928 162,121 144,900 61,993 253,976
FY 2014 122,156 176,068 159,000 57,316 254,139
FY 2015 120,546 172,427 169,394 55,886 238,150
Operating Income ($000)
FY 2012 166 (98) (7,389) 2,246 403
FY 2013 28 338 (4,485) 3,998 (3,732)
FY 2014 157 682 2,104 (341) (8,276)
FY 2015 (1,433) 87 795 461 (23,413)
Operating Margin
FY 2012 0.1% -0.1% -5.0% 3.8% 0.1%
FY 2013 0.0% 0.2% -3.1% 6.4% -1.5%
FY 2014 0.1% 0.4% 1.3% -0.6% -3.3%
FY 2015 -1.2% 0.1% 0.5% 0.8% -9.8%
Current Ratio
FY 2012 1.39 1.48 1.89 1.86 1.64
FY 2013 1.32 1.48 1.81 1.95 1.91
FY 2014 1.71 1.64 1.89 1.90 1.89
FY 2015 1.45 1.67 1.92 1.45 1.51
Days Cash on Hand (with Board-designated funds)
FY 2012 115 95 148 - 104
FY 2013 112 105 129 1 113
FY 2014 117 98 127 0 118
FY 2015 113 99 118 2 93
Average Age of Plant (Years)
FY 2012 17.6 16.6 14.9 8.1 25.0
FY 2013 18.6 17.0 15.5 9.6 27.1
FY 2014 19.7 17.5 16.9 12.1 31.4
FY 2015 20.4 17.2 21.7 - 33.7
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
60
Table 26: Financial Performance Summary for Hartford HealthCare Corporation and Its Comparator Hospital Systems (2012-2015)
Performance Measurement by Year
Hartford HealthCare Corporation
Yale-New Haven Health Services Corporation
Western Connecticut Health Network
Net Patient Service Revenue ($000)
FY 2012 2,097,825 2,416,325 1,078,048
FY 2013 2,129,453 3,161,782 1,056,022
FY 2014 2,271,219 3,287,692 988,355
FY 2015 2,256,455 3,492,685 1,123,822
Total Operating Revenue ($000)
FY 2012 2,373,312 2,498,142 1,128,975
FY 2013 2,358,438 3,280,354 1,093,895
FY 2014 2,481,582 3,394,686 1,020,611
FY 2015 2,465,079 3,602,280 1,157,439
Operating Income ($000)
FY 2012 87,141 141,403 38,462
FY 2013 (13,235) 136,182 37,113
FY 2014 52,186 170,112 32,556
FY 2015 31,074 159,656 12,960
Operating Margin
FY 2012 3.7% 5.7% 3.4%
FY 2013 -0.6% 4.2% 3.4%
FY 2014 2.1% 5.0% 3.2%
FY 2015 1.3% 4.4% 1.1%
Current Ratio
FY 2012 1.94 2.26 2.54
FY 2013 1.65 2.37 2.08
FY 2014 2.05 2.97 1.68
FY 2015 1.81 2.94 1.71
Days Cash on Hand (with Board-designated funds)
FY 2012 196 165 258
FY 2013 218 137 289
FY 2014 247 173 287
FY 2015 257 175 229
Average Age of Plant (Years)
FY 2012 12.5 9.2 11.9
FY 2013 12.4 7.9 12.8
FY 2014 12.9 7.5 14.5
FY 2015 13.1 8.3 12.0
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
61
Table 27: Audited Financial Statements (AFS) From DPH Website* Name Fiscal Years
The Charlotte Hungerford Hospital 2016/15, 2015/14, 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Hartford HealthCare Corporation (HHC) 2016/15, 2015/14, 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Hartford Hospital (part of HHC) 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
MidState Medical Center (part of HHC) 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Hospital of Central Connecticut (part of HHC) 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Backus Hospital (part of HHC) 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Windham Hospital (part of HHC) 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Bristol Hospital and Health Care Group 2016/15, 2015/14, 2014/13, and 2013/12
Griffin Health Services 2016/15, 2015/14, 2014/13, and 2013/12
Essent-Sharon Hospital 2015 ONLY, 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Danbury Hospital and Subsidiary 2015/14, 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
The New Milford Hospital 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
The Waterbury Hospital and Subsidiary 2015/14, 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Western Connecticut Health Network and Subsidiaries 2015/14, 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Yale-New Haven Health Services Corporation 2015/14, 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Yale-New Haven Hospital 2015/14, 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
John Dempsey Hospital (UConn) 2015/14, 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center 2015/14, 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Saint Mary’s Hospital 2015/14, 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Middlesex Health System and Subsidiaries 2015/14, 2014/13, 2013/12, and 2012/11
Norwalk Health Services Corporation 2013/12
Greenwich Health Care Services, Inc. 2013/12
Bridgeport Hospital and Subsidiaries 2013/12 Source: Department of Public Health. See link: http://www.ct.gov/dph/cwp/view.asp?a=3902&q=276986
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
62
Exhibit A: Responses to the Preliminary Report
Cost and Market Impact Review Preliminary Report, 16-32135-CMIR
63
Exhibit B: Analysis of Responses to Preliminary Report